@sun @Bernard it's also very clear they understood why democracy was flawed to begin with which is why they have it set up as a republic and they had so many restrictions on who could vote and who couldn't that have been systematically destroyed over the decades.
If I'm not mistaken there was even some writing saying that they didn't want to make a republic or even a democracy but they hated the British government specifically the king so much that they wanted to try and create something that would never resemble uk bureaucracy.
Which is why they try to split up power among the government and try to create many fail face for people to try and divert or distill that power which in the end didn't work.
But it was admirable that they tried.
@sun I think I'm a little confused on what you're asking.
If you're asking how was freedom of speech supposed to function when they weren't individually guided by States because the federal government was equal to it I think it was just supposed to be taken on good faith and they would resolve the issue later if something major happened that violated it.
>I think it was just supposed to be taken on good faith and they would resolve the issue later if something major happened that violated it.
All laws are to be taken in good faith. Normally nothing will stop you from violating the law, there's no omnipresent/omnipotent force to do so.
Laws aren't meant to be applied as if the enforcers were omnipresent/omnipotent.
They're guidelines to avoid already known mistakes.
It is a necessity for a nation, tribe, group, civilization to be able to violate the laws when the context requires it.
Laws cannot work with a close to/emulate omnipresent/omnipotent surveillance state (state self control).
Laws/regulations also cannot work when the population is demoralized (civilian self control).