Okay. Whatever.
Moving on to something of actual substance ...
You ask, "why [not] make it [...] a much easier form [of government] to influence or control?"
But that is exactly what they did! And that is exactly why they did it ...
You are dropping the context. Instead of comparing the Constitution to what it was
actually designed and intended to replace in the real world (namely, the Articles of Confederation), you are trying to invoke a comparison to some vague, unspecified and entirely hypothetical "form ... much easier ... to influence or control" (one that would presumably have been "worse" than the Constitution).
But that is exactly what the tighter "republic form" embodied in the Constitution was relative to the looser "confederal form" embodied in the Articles of Confederation - namely, it was a "much easier form to influence or control." That is the whole point.
That is why the federalists
* wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation in the first place. Under the the Articles, they couldn't get the kinds of things they wanted on the scale they wanted them (more centralized power in fewer hands, wider and stronger taxation authority, the predicates for central banking, etc., etc.). So they decided the Articles would have to be replaced with something more tractable to their purposes. That "something" ended up being the Constitution.
And
that is
exactly why Patrick Henry famously declared that he "smellt a rat" when a convention was announced for 1787 in Philadelphia - ostensibly (but not really) for the sole purpose of proposing and discussing some possible amendments to the Articles of Confederation for each of the sovereign states to consider and maybe adopt ...
That is ahistorical and makes no sense.
The Bill of Rights did not purport to correct anything in the body of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was offered and adopted as a sop to the anti-federalists
* who were opposed to or skeptical of the Constitution, not as a "patch" to fix anything the federalists thought might be wrong it. In fact, many federalists argued that the Bill of Rights would itself introduce flaws into the Constitution. Indeed, it was the foremost federalist of all, Alexander Hamilton himself, who warned that the Bill of Rights was "dangerous" (his exact word) and would end up just being regarded as a list of permissions granted by the government to the people, rather than as a list of restrictions laid by the people upon the government. (I am rarely on Hamilton's side in anything, but he was entirely correct about this. That is exactly what has happened.)
It is also interesting to note in this regard that between its creation and ratification (a mere ten months in a world where communication was limited to the speed of travel), the Constitution was never changed by so much as a jot or tittle. Not a single word was added or elided, nor even any comma or period moved or removed - despite the much vaunted "debate" over the document between the federalists and anti-federalists. As far as the content of the Constitution is concerned, that brief "debate" might as well have never happened at all ...
* The federalists were indeed largely supported by "a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class," just as Richman said. The primary support for the anti-federalists, on the other hand, came from those around the other end of the spectrum - smaller merchants, farmers, laborers, etc. This is a generalization, of course, and there were certainly exceptions (Patrick Henry being notable among the anti-federalists, for example). But Richman's characterization is nevertheless broadly accurate, and speaks directly to the animating "agendas and interests" of the opposing sides.
Connect With Us