This morning's paper contained an article by Sanford Levinson, law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. The article was headlined “Constitution is Broken,” and all of the author's gripes about our political system are valid. I could find no argument.

However, I must disagree with the notion that the Constitution is broken. Quite the contrary, it is working even more efficiently than its creators hoped it would.

Common Americans had endured great hardships in the fight to free the colonies from England and expected to enjoy the fruits of their effort. They expected a voice in the new scheme of things with the establishment of a popular form of government. Their expectations, however, were unreasonable, for why should privileged Americans establish the new republic as a political democracy, when a true democracy responds to the majority of its citizens, and the American privileged of 1787, like the privileged of all past and present cultures comprised the minority. These men understood democracy was a threat to their wealth, their wealth-making opportunities, and the very existence of their economic class.

The colonial delegates who met in May of 1787 at the State House in Philadelphia were among the wealthiest, most influential men in the thirteen colonies. Farmers and craftsmen were conspicuous by their absence, but the truth is that the meeting was held in the strictest of secrecy and few American commoners knew of its existence. It is also undeniable that most, if not all, of those delegates feared the concept of democracy and political control by the common masses. This truth has been recorded in the pages of history.

So, other than an ignorance of American history, why would contemporary American believe the Constituion of the United States created a true democracy? It didn't!
What those delegates produced with their superior education, their greater knowledge of human nature, and their superb command of the English language was a document that offered the illusion of democratic government: its words implied democracy, but it delivered only anti-democracy.

The two-tiered government, we're taught, is the result of compromise: the Senate satisfies the needs of smaller states for equal representation, and the House of Representatives the need of larger states for representation by population. It's pure camouflage that gave political advantage to the privleged class. Although a few states allowed commoners to participate in the selection of senators, most required state legislators---men of privilege---to do the selecting. Also, as the document was ratified, the people were not allowed to advise their senators how to vote on issues, privileged men of state legislatures retained that privilege.

Elections were staggered for the Senate, one third of the seats every two years. This, we're told, assures continuous leadership. Leadership of the privileged. The true reason is staggered elections make it difficult for commoners to win control of the Senate. The delegates knew commoners might turn out in numbers to vote on highly emotional issues and win Senate seats in states they controlled. But they also knew passionate causes have short lives, that to win control of the Senate commoners must sustain an effort of four and possibly six years: a prolonged effort which they believed the common masses incapable.

In addition, although the Constitution gave the House of Representatives power to create tax legislation, to temper taxation of their weaalth, privileged men of the Seanate were given amendment powers over House bills.

To ensure control of their new central government, the delegates created the Electoral College. Delegates to the college had the "privilege" of electing the President and Vice-President of the United States. In most states the privileged men of state legislatures--and not the electorate--chose college delegates.

Even the method of railroading the ratification of their new constituiton by special state conventions, and not by colonial legislatures as the existing Articles of Confederation demanded ,was a desparate and illegal act.

The bottom line is that the Constitution of the United States was designed by men of the privileged class to keep control of the new government away from the common people. Can anyone who knows even a little of this nation's history, and the perpetual control of government by the privileged class to the detriment of common working Americans, truly claim that the Constitution is broken?

If you want to know how a true democracy should work and some of the benefits it would provide to its common citizens, visit the website www.voicesfordd.com/book3.html and read about a fictional democracy called “America.”