Guest, whichever. I didn't intend to bring up any standard Hitler thing, whatever that is, or to randomly insult anyone. But I happened to've been reading recently about Robert A. Dahl, professor emeritus of political science at Yale, and his recent book about the constitution. Things struck me like "Article I, Section 9 forbade Congress to forbid the slave trade "the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States shall think proper to admit".
And in 1808 Article IV Section 2 made the citizens of free states complicit by requiring them to return a runaway "Person held to service or Labour in one State" to "the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due"--despite that the slave had escaped to a free state.
   Also, under Article I Section 2 a state's allotment of seats in the House counted not only "free persons" but also "three fifths of all other Persons".

There's an interesting review in a recent New Yorker, and it's on a reasonable level of discourse, I think. But I like the Mudcat too, and didn't mean to mire it in muck.

   But there may be a tendency among liberals to quickly forget their nuttier past proposals, and a tendency among conservatives to quickly forget how they've resisted and blocked the better ones. I don't mind generalizations. I don't mean them or too often take them personally. That makes sense, doesn't it? They're generalizations.