How the fuck did they get it so right? Were they literal geniuses?

How the fuck did they get it so right? Were they literal geniuses?

Attached: Constitution-1250x650.gif (1250x650, 565K)

IT WAS PERFECT UNTIL 1913

They had a lot of working knowledge of the Globalist even back then
They were Sup Forums before Sup Forums

Attached: 1520525113146.png (540x482, 265K)

Jefferson certainly was a literal genius, yes

Attached: quote-i-think-this-is-the-most-extraordinary-collection-of-talent-of-human-knowledge-that-has-ever-b (850x400, 67K)

There was not a single woman involved... men tend to get shit right when women don't get involved...look around you... everything is shit because women are E...VE..RY...where...

Human nature has never changed and never will. The founding fathers were some of the smartest people of their time.

No, they were flawed men. But unlike almost every other human, they acknowledged they were flawed.

Q predicted this

This, but he lacked the vision for a future like the Federalists
Madison knew what's up though, he started as a Pro-Constitution Federalist but then flipped to the Dem-Republicans after the Federalists became stupid authoritarian faggots

Anglo-saxons had a history of being individualistic and free. It was the (((normans))) who suppressed the anglo's natural desire for freedom. The creation of the USA was the eternal anglo finally returning to its natural state.

They just saw what Europe did wrong. And realized that even when it looked like Europe had it right they were about to fall into chaos. So they hardwired certain precautions into place via constitution to make it idiot proof

Eh they're overrated.

They were the product of their time.
>Sick of Europe
>Sick of Monarchs
>Sick of having to be a slave to a king
>Sick of not having any form of Liberty
I consider them to be the greatest men to ever grace the Earth. Even Thomas Jefferson only wrote three things on his tomb:
>Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom & Father of the University of Virginia
Not even anything pertaining to the Revolution or his Presidency. They were just great men.

Attached: quote-the-revolution-was-effected-before-the-war-commenced-the-revolution-was-in-the-minds-and-heart (850x400, 83K)

Almost every significant event in the history of English and Anglo-Saxon monarchism came after the Norman invasion.

Attached: 1520685557964.jpg (360x360, 17K)

The Articles of confederation was the first constitution and it didn’t work. There has also been dozens of changes and amendments to it.
It’s a good document, hardly perfect though.

Thinking it’s perfect isn’t the point of it, that’s why it’s changable

Founders said on multiple occasions to change the Constitution as little as possible

English civil war, Cromwell, Glorious Revolution, English Bill of Rights, all the Anglo systematically regaining his freedom from the bootlicking statism that the (((normans))) brought over.

The Constitution is an imperfect document made by imperfect men. Most wanted an elective monarchy but Shays' Rebellion had made that impossible.
Stop worshipping paper.

Cromwell and the (not so) Glorious Revolution is the reason England has a monarch that can't even sign Royal Assent.

The Norman Invasion: 1066

The Magna Carta (1215), the Provisions of Oxford (1258), the Provisions of Westminister (1259), the Statute of Marlborough (1267), the Welsh Acts of 1535 & 1542, the Petition of Right (1628), Instrument of government (1653), Humble Petition & Advice (1657), Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Act of Union (1706), Acts of Union (1800).

Everything was perfect, save for a clause preventing lobbyism and government handouts.

Since the USA devolved into Civil War, you can't really say the document was a success.

It had to be defended by force of arms against a very serious domestic rebellion that could have gone either way.

And had Germany and Japan won WWII, people would look at this document through a very different lens.

As revered as this document has become, it still requires constant vigilance to defend it.

And that's a shame.

Precisely. Limited monarchy vs absolutist cuckoldry. Doesn't matter that the normal invasion happened centuries earlier, it forever altered the course of english history, as much as Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.

*as much as Caesar crossing the Rubicon altered Rome

Neither the Anglo-Saxons under the Heptarchy, nor the Anglo-Saxons after the Norman invasion lived under an absolute monarchy.

The pre-Roman tribal monarchies don't even meet the requirements for absolute monarchism.

Attached: 7.png (558x614, 24K)

Why didn’t they write it in the constitution then?

They looked at their own government and knew what they didn't want.
They didn't get it perfect but they did pretty damn good

And everything you think is a """"right"""", even if it has no basis in reality, was taken away by an elected parliament, as opposed to a monarchy, I can almost certainty guarantee that no matter what said right is.

Absolutely

No good thing comes easily, and stays without maintenance. Everything in nature decays, so that which is comprised of the meta will follow suit.
The issue is, most of the modern-day vanguards of the people are in fact wolves in sheep's clothing, or too powerless to halt the already-careening decline.

It’s by far the greatest document I. The history of mankind.

Also, if you view it through a Hobbesian lens, the constitution is the sovereign of the US.

All they wanted was to be free and wrote it specifically to ensure that. Turns out freedom creates the ultimate country.

>semantics
Fine, absolutism is too specific a term, but that doesn't change the fact that the Norman invasion was one of the greatest turning points in English history. The example of Rome was to show how an event has ratifications that span centuries.

I wasn't even disputing that. It's just that child's view of Cromwell and the revolution of 1688 vs the world you have. English constitutionalism was balanced between monarchs and public assemblies for almost all of its history. All Cromwell and 1688 did was establish that parliament could gain supremacy over a monarchy simply by taking it for themselves. That's closer to anarchy and having a Queen whose Royal Prerogative powers are entire ceremonially is useless.

Nothing that humans make is perfect. But the Fathers did well because they knew about the Rothschilds back then, and took precautionsnagainst (((banker))) domination. They just didn't foresee the (((bankers)))also seizing so much of academia and the judiciary/legislative.

It's not only an Anglo thing. The people who came to America were of a unique stock in the way they were all seeking to be left alone. They traveled across the ocean knowing how harsh the trip was and that there was no civilization at their destination. They had to completely start new. It was a type of selection where the more rebellious people of Europe left. That's why I would say white Americans are generally more rebellious than there European counterparts. Same can be said for Canada where the people who wanted to remain loyalist and avoid confrontation went.

Yeah. The constitution and bill of rights died with Lincoln. He really was America's Julius Caesar.

Alexander Hamilton was the worst

>'
Julius Caesar was a tyrant, hence why his own senate killed him. He was a great general, but he was closer to Hitler than Lincoln.

The Founding Fathers wrote the constitution with the idea of ultimate freedom for the individual. Something people today still struggle to grasp.

Lincoln killed states rights and local governance in favor of centralized government to favor northeastern coastal elites, only thing worse than him were his buddies who became president after him (Johnson and Grant) who ran some of the most corrupt administrations of all time

Was Lincoln a big government leftist tyrant after all?

By the standards of his time, yes. The overton window has shifted so far left that he probably wouldn't be considered one now but he definitely started the slippery slope of federal tyranny