English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, would you have considered it a document of hope or a pathway to despair?

2006-10-29 11:36:02 · 11 answers · asked by kristine 2 in Arts & Humanities History

11 answers

Was meant to be a document of hope.

If our fore fathers saw the USA today, the way government has become, the rights that we have lost. They would just about bug out and not know what to do.

Todays America is far from the dreams and visions of those that created it.

2006-10-29 11:37:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I don't think that I can be more profound than one of the other writers who answered your question quite well. Obviously the founding fathers did not see their document as an instrument toward despair or they would not have written it but they failed to see the ramifications of the freedom to bare arms. Had they known the violence that would arise from economic inequality, an emphasis on self worth attached to materialism, immigrants who are not living the American dream, and weapons proliferating through the streets they would have not written the document as they did

2006-10-29 20:20:59 · answer #2 · answered by Steven S 2 · 0 0

Where, in that part of US history would you have gotten the idea that the framers were in despair?

It was outlining a form of government very different than anything yet attempted.

Despair would indicate a feeling that nothing would have worked. It the founding fathers didn't think it would have worked, then why would they have bothered. It wasn't easy to make the 13 states agree to a single form of government. Despair would have caused them to go with 13 individual nations, governing themselves, and not much hope of success.

2006-10-29 19:40:43 · answer #3 · answered by Vince M 7 · 2 0

The Constitution was a blue print of the direction America should and could go. It should be a living document but depending on the powers that be, they are always trying to change it for some political agenda.

2006-10-29 19:40:20 · answer #4 · answered by fijisun 2 · 0 0

Sounds like an essay question. Clearly it was meant as a document of hope.

2006-10-29 19:38:55 · answer #5 · answered by sci55 5 · 2 0

lol It was obviously a document of hope or they would have welcomed the British yoke. Silly question.

2006-10-29 20:26:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

America was not supposed to have a central bank, inherited wealth, or use its standing army for adventures overseas.

The Great Experiment is failing.

2006-10-29 19:50:53 · answer #7 · answered by Jim P 4 · 0 0

It was meant to be a document of hope but todays Republicans like to use it as $hit tickets.

2006-10-29 19:39:58 · answer #8 · answered by cheri b 5 · 3 1

i think it was an attempt at making something better than it was, however the people who wrote it never dreamed that other people would take such liberties with it, so to answer your question i think it was one of hope, but done so with cautious optimism.

2006-10-29 19:39:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It has different interpretation for different people. You sound like you have an opinion of your own and i'd love to hear it. . .

2006-10-29 19:39:31 · answer #10 · answered by Tridda AKA K.B.J.G 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers