Hello Richard,   
      
    DD>> Same deal on term limits for elected officials. Many of them seem to   
    DD>> think that holding elected office is a lifetime sinecure. Which   
    DD>> certainly is *NOT* what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.   
      
    RW>> OF course, but then the framers of the constitution never   
    RW>> anticipated professional politicians.  Their thought was   
    RW>> that average folks would seek office as well as vote.   
      
    LL>> The Framers of the Constitution were rich white men.  Most of whom   
    LL>> were lawyers.  And all of them very much aware of professional   
    LL>> politicians, especially those from England.  They wanted to protect   
    LL>> their own interests, and those of their friends.  Not exactly what   
    LL>> anybody would call "average folks".   
      
    RW> True enough, but they had to give it more than just a "yeah   
    RW> yeah" at least a wink and a nod.  Aslo there were those who   
    RW> weren't slave owners, though most were, as you say "rich   
    RW> white men" including Franklin.   
      
   Still, we should not really judge them.  Especially by our standards,   
   as the world (society) they lived in was much different than our own.   
      
    RW>> Their efforts were geared toward eliminating a professional   
    RW>> perpetual ruling class.   
      
    LL>> Except rich white men.   
      
    LL>> Black folk were not included in their version of America.  Women   
    LL>> folk were not included in their version of America. Poor folk were   
    LL>> not included in their version of America. Only those who were white,   
    LL>> male, Christian (preferably non-Catholic), and owned   
    LL>> property/slaves, were included in their version of America.   
      
    RW> True, for the most part, but remember, from the get go there were battle   
    RW> lines drawn over the question of slavery.  Some   
    RW> time within the next few decades we'd finally get the   
    RW> MIssouri compromise.  The slavery question definitely   
    RW> divided the framers, but they had to go forward, and hence   
    RW> ignore that question, and put it off on those who would come after.   
      
   Slavery was an issue the Framers of the Constitution deliberately   
   put off, as it was too divisive.  Unfortunately, no peaceful solution   
   was able to be found, with the result being a war pitting fathers   
   against sons, and brothers against brothers.  A tragedy for us all.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)