Tim Romano wrote:

> Wei,
> If your goal is to understand Pound (and not merely to hang him out to dry
> for his political sins) then you should investigate further why he felt the
> US Constitution had been betrayed.

It seems to me that one way this debate is confused is that everyone
tries to treat as a two-sided debate of some sort what in practice has
had a fairly large number of positions which simply do not bear on
each other.

Consider this statement above. In reference to understanding Pound
I would agree with Tim. It is important to see what Pound saw when
he looked at the U.S. Constitution.

But if one looked at this whole matter politically -- and from the
point of view of the great mass of people in the United States, then
one can only bewail the fact that the Constitution has not been
betrayed right out of existence. It is hard to imagine a constitution
more carefully designed to protect the owners of wealth (of any
kind) against the rest of the nation. Let's take a specific case --
The New Deal, which Pound thought to belong to the treason
against the Constitution. I can only say oh how I wish that had
been the case. Only one New Deal project in fact seriously
challenged the anti-worker spirit of the U.S. Constitution, the
WPA -- and that was hurriedly suppressed.

Incidentally, on another maillist to which I subscribe Jefferson has
currently been the focus of debate. Those defending Jefferson have
argued that he opposed the Constitution. Those attacking Jefferson
(essentiallly equating him with Adams, Hamilton, Washington, the
other "Founders") have argued that his opposition to the Constitution
was half-hearted -- that in fact it was his tacit support of it that
turned the tide in Virginia towards ratification.

The U.S. Constitution is a thoroughly oligarchic document. John
Brown remains probably its wisest interpreter.

Carrol