PAs system for electoral votes

1. Governor Tom Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi suggested a plan to change the way PA awards it electoral votes of the winner-takes-all system.
2. The new system would include one electoral vote to be given to each state's Congressional district, and the winner of the popular vote would receive two more.
3. I PA had gotten rid of the winner-take-all system in 2008, President Obama would have bare beaten John McCain in a 11-10 vote, instead of taking all 21 electoral votes.
4. Democrats have won PA in the last five presidential elections, yet it still remains competitive. 
5. Giving two electoral votes to the state winner won't motivate candidates to campaign, as they should, to win the votes.
6. Changing the system would not create a significant improvement for society, and may even make matters worse for existing problems of the electoral college.
7. Republicans worried that Democrats would spend more money for resources in swing congressional districts that were won by them because it's possible to change the state's political standing.
8. The concept of awarding electoral votes by congressional district was introduced and followed by since the 1950s, when a republican senator and GOP Rep. wanted to fight the liberal push for direct popular election of President.
9. A secretive, nonprofit group called All Votes Matter has been pushing the electoral vote scheme since May in PA.
10. Between April and June, this group spent $77,700 to get support from legislation to actually implement this scheme.

1. How is the Electoral College broken?
2. How could Congress improve the electoral college system on a national level?
3. Does Pileggi think his plan is more beneficial or useless for PA and why?
4. Would this plan change the political standing of several states or have no effect (if a state is democrat or republican)?
5. How might elections affect the economy?

representative committee

Representative: Senator Bob Casey Jr.

Committees:

1. Joint Economic Committee:

• It is a bicameral Congressional Committee composed of ten members from each the Senate and the House.
• It was established by the Eployment Act of 1946.
• It makes a continuing study of matters relating to the US economy

2. Foreign Relations Committee

• The committees was established in 1816; it is one of the original 10 standing committee of the Senate.
• Its main job is to help develop and influence US foreign policy.
• Through their power, the committee has helped shape foreign policies related to war, peace, and international relations.

3. Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

• The committee originally began in 1869 as the Committee of Education: It was known throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s as the Education and Labor Committee.
• The committee has broad jurisdictions over the country's health care, education, employment, and retirement policies.
• The committee is composed of 23 Senators: 10 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

lost in detention

Facts:

1. About 400,000 immigrants were detained/deported this year.
2. Under Obama's presidency, there has been a significant increase in finding illegal immigrants compared to presidency under Bush.
3. Federal, state, and local governments work together to find illegal immigrants, especially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
4. In the previous year, 195,000 people were removed from the U.S. because of crimes they committed.
5. ICE is the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
6. ICE has offices in all 50 states and 47 other countries.
7. ICE's goal is to get 400,000 illegal immigrants every year.
8. People believe the government should reform the law because families are torn apart when American-born children lose their parents, when they are deported for being in the U.S. illegally.
9. 36% of undocumented people that live in the U.S. have a family and lived in the U.S. for 11+ years.
10. Three million immigrants have been detained in detentions, where they are kept until they are sent back to their originating country.

Questions:

1. Why has there been an increase of illegal immigrants just recently/the past couple years?
2. How could the government change the laws to protect children with deported parents?
3. How are harmless illegal immigrants found when they generally blend with U.S. citizens?
4. How do other countries deal with illegal immigrants within their nation?
5. What may cause ICE to find more or less illegal immigrants in our country?

terry Gross

Facts/Details
1. First clinic of birth control was opened in 1916
2. It was opened by Margaret Sanger who was one of 11 children
3. Margaret Sanger came up with the name of birth control
4. Sanger helped deliver mothers baby and raised them after her mother died.
5. Mother died of tuberculosis at young age
6. Sanger became a socialist
7. Birthrates for working class are still very high
8. Sanger decided to try and make contraception legal
9. Condoms started in 1850 which were expensive and hard to get
10. Child birth was very dangerous.

Questions
1. Should abortion be legal for all people?
2. What part of the Constitution deals with abortion?
3. What is abortion such a big issue today?
4. Has abortion always been a big issue?
5. Why was birth control and abortions established?
6. How did the public react to the idea of birth control when it first originated?

John Boehner

Facts:
1.  Speaker of the House
2.  He is a Republican
3.  He claims that he supports the will of the House
4.  He always states what's on his mind
5.  Believes that his and the party's view will become the same after the 2012 election
6.   Feels that the Republicans will keep the majority
7.  The Republicans have used the leverage of having control of a single chamber of Congress to slash 1 trillion dollars from the budget over the next 10 years
8.  Says that they are trying to spend less

Questions: 
1.  Should his attitude be commended or denounced?
2.  Has he kept true to his promises?
3.  Will he remain the Speaker after the next election or will he be replaced in your opinion?
4.  Will he remain Speaker if the Democrats take control of the House?
5.  How is his relationship between himself and the President?

Is the US house too small?

Facts & Details

1. Average U.S. congressional district now has 640,000 citizens
2. There were only 65 members in 1789.
3. In 1911 the US House of Representatives had 435 members which is the same as today.
4.  The British House of Commons has 646 members
5. The U.S.House population is 12.8% black and 14.4% Latino.


Questions:
1. Do most politicians think the number of representatives in the house should be more or less?
2. Why has it stayed the same for so long?
3. Do you expect it to change anytime soon? 
4. For people who want it to become bigger, how many seats would you like to see being added? 
5. What are the pros and cons of a bigger house?

Is the US house too small?
The number our people in the house has stayed the same since 1911. I think it would be a good idea to expand it as our population is growing. I don't feel very strongly about this, since it has been working for a long time with 435 members, it just seems like it should grow as our population grows

Due Process

1. 1.  Only 5% of cases have dna evidence.
2. 2. Witness testimonies can be skewed and unreliable.
3. 3.  Texas has the most executions.
4. 4.  Quincy Spruell served 24 years in prison even though he was not guilty.
5. 5. Kevin Rojas was convicted and charged in 1991
6. 6.  A person can spend 25 years on death row.
8. 7. There are 55 innocence projects in the United States.
9. 8. Jim McCloskey has freed 44 people in the past 40 years.
10. 9. Cases are often worked on for 10-15 years
12. 10. One estimate on the amount of innocent people was about 2 or 3% of those in prisons.
13. Questions:
14. 1. Why might an eyewitness be deemed unreliable?
15. 2. With such a high level of court systems, how can someone be wrongfully accused?
16. 3. Why does it take so long for someone to be executed after a sentence?
17. 4. Why do court cases take so long?
18. 5. What determines a persons sentence?

Justice Stevens Important Case

1)  Johnson was participating in in the "Republican War Chest Tour."
2)  The purpose of the "Republican War Chest Tour" was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration.
3)  Of the 100 demonstrators, Johnson was the only one to be charged.
4)  He was sentenced to one year in prison and a $2,000.00 fine.  Then the case went further to the Supreme Court.
5)  If he burned the flag as means of disposing it because it was worn or torn he would not have been prosecuted.
6) In the end, it was Constitutional to burn the flag as means of "free speech."


Questions:
1)  How is burning something that people fought for Constitutional?
2)  Has anyone tried a case against this one?
3)  Were their any protest against this decision?
4)  Is this law universal for all states or just allowed in Texas?


I also just wanted to say i think this is against everything the country stands for and that if not constitutionally, morally, he should not have gotten off.

Justices

1. President Bush nominated John G. Roberts, Jr., as Chief Justice, and took his seat on September 29, 2005.
2. Antonin Scalia was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in 1982.
3. From 1965 to 1988, Anthony Kennedy was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific.
4. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
5. From 1980-1990, Stephen Breyer served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990-1994.
6. President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she took assumed this role August 8, 2009.
7. From 1995-1999, Elena Kagan was associate counsel to President Clinton and then served as deputy assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Counsel.
8. How long does it usually take from the time a Justice is nominated until they actually assume their role?
9. Kagan Served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall during the 1987 term.
What makes someone viable for Supreme court justice candidacy?

3 court cases of interest

 Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
 A man accused of capital murder was trialed to be put to death, but the complication was that he was proven mildly mentally retarded and said to have had the brain competance of a 6 year old.  In the state of Texas where the death penalty is most commonly practice, it was said that killing the man was unconstitutional via his 8th ammendment rights.  He was only sentanced for life in jail, but in my opinion if he was only as competant as a 6 year old, it might have been right to charge him a little less harsh, but on the other hand he did commit capital murder which is messed up.  This case interested me because it was similar to the case we did in class with the other mildly mentally retarded man.

 United States v. Drayton (2002)
 A bus was stopped by two police officers searching for drugs and weapons, each member of the bus was asked to be searched and in the end 2 men were caught smuggling illegal cocaine strapped to their inner thighs.  The trail was brought to the court under a search and seizure charger claiming that the officers never informed the men on the bus of their right to deny the search without a warrant, and although they gave their concent (regrettedly) they were still found guilty under the basis that the 4th ammendment doesn't require officers to tell those being searched that they have the right to deny a search.  In my opinion I feel as if the officers should have had a warrant to search the whole bus itself, but then again the bus driver works for public transportation companies and it wouldn'tbe smart for an innocent bus driver to deny government authority consent to search their bus.

 Waller v. Florida (1969-1970)
It had to do with double jeopardy because a man was found guilty of 2 crimes and tried and imprisoned for 180 days because of them.  Afterward the same crimes were filed for another court but the case was decided that the supreme court said if a trial is tried in municipal court then there can't be a second trial under any circumstance with the law of double jeopardy. The concept of double jeopardy has interested me ever since i gained knowledge of the O.J. simpson case.

Roe v Wade

Details of the case:

1. Modern abortion techniques have significantly reduced the likelihood of a woman's death during the procedure. This eliminates the claim that abortion is primarily a health issue. Now, it is more of a moral concern.
2. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any rights to privacy. 
3. The court mentioned that bringing an unwanted child into a family could cause harm, both physically and mentally.
4. the 14th amendment protects a woman's right to get an abortion.
5. Many people believe that life begins at conception, while others believe life begins after birth. To some people, abortion is similar to murder. 
6. The state has the ability to regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester.
7. Saving the mother's life is a legal justification for having an abortion. 
8. Viability of a fetus is usually around 7 months. 
9. The case disallowed many federal and state restrictions on abortions.
10. 7-2 majority in favor of Roe. 

Questions:

1. What would a biologist have to say about this issue? When would they say life begins?
2. Do states ever have to ability to prohibit an abortion? 
3. If abortions were deemed illegal, do you think many people would simple turn to back alley abortions?  
4. How has this decision impacted society?
5. Could it be argued that abortion is not really a government issue, but rather a moral or religious issue

West wing episode

Facts
1. A candidate has to be approved by the Senate.
2. An example of an enumerated power is marriage.
3. New justices are reviewed by the Judiciary Council.
4. The result of the court case of Brown v Board of Education was that schools should not be segregated.
5. Everyone has the right to privacy.
6. Another court case that was mentioned was Roe v Wade which deals with abortion.
7. A person's personal past usually becomes made an issue somehow.
8. The President will select a judge that has the same political view/party as him.

Questions
1. What would be effects if we didn't have the right to privacy?
2. What are the requirements for a case to reach the Supreme Court?
3. Do justices typically decide to retire?
4. What are the negatives of having justices serve for life?
5. What questions are asked in the interview when trying to select a new justice?

Federalist 78

Quotes

1. the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." 
I thought this quote was interesting because it states that the Supreme Court will never gain too much power to dominate over the other branches; therefore it will be the least dangerous. 

2. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
I chose this quote because it shows how the Supreme Court's decisions are based on the Constitution.

3. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
I chose this quote because it shows that the Supreme Court holds their power when they are brought forth something (a case) to judge. They cannot enforce laws, but they rule on cases based on the laws that are already established. 

4. in a government in which they are separated from eachother, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution."
This quote I thought was important because again it states that the Supreme Court is the least dangerous, but mainly to political rights. The judiciary respects the Constitution and makes their decision based on the rights within it, therefore they are not a danger to the political rights. 

5. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges."
This quote shows that to be a judge you must meet certain qualifications and have certain skills in the law. It states that judges cannot just be anyone. 

Questions

1.) Do you think the Judicial Branch could ever abuse it's power?
2.) Is the Judicial Branch the most powerful of all three branches?
3.) Do you agree on the rule that judges serve for life?
4.) Do you think judges appointed are at any times biased while making a decision?
5.) Are there any changes you would make to any of the three branches?

2000 election 2

8-10 Facts Learned:

1. The Supreme Court voted with a majority vote of 5-4 to stop the recount

2. Was decided in the Rehnquist Court

3. On December 8th, the Florida Supreme Court declared that a manual recount was required by law.

4. Bush vs. Gore was the 4th intervention by the Supreme Court

5. Ballots differ from county to county

6. In the 1960s and 70s there was an effort to use the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to ensure more rule-bound decisions.

7. The decision lacked any basis in precedent

8. Poor countries have old machinery that successfully counts 97% of votes.

Post-Reading Questions:

1. What is the risk with minimalism?

2. Why aren't all voting cards the same?

3. Are the machines more accurate now?

4. How are people selected to count ballots?

5. How will we prevent what happened in this election from occurring again?

The common good

I think this article expresses what most people think about the idea of the common good. Most societies all want a common good, but sometimes its just really unrealistic.  Maybe it's difficult to agree exactly how to get to a common good, but if we want to improve healthcare, environment, and education changing government regulations of these things is not going to improve them.  I think that to change for the better good our best bet is to improve the attitudes of all americans. Just look at the social democracies of the Scandinavian countries.  They are some of the happiest countries in the world, while america is not at all.
    How can this be done?  The government can't do everything.  It has to start in the home first with basic values. However, government policies can help.  Free systems have a tendency to work well when the work that people put in for personal benefit also benefits society.  I am writing this blog because I want a good grade, but at the same time I help the class by putting forward my ideas.  If we can come up with rewards for people who do good, then we can nurture open-mindedness and a positive attitude about progress.
Lastly, I think James Madison would think that the common good is achievable through reason and the union of individual and societal goal

RECOUNT

Facts from movie:

1. Possibly 200,000 possible voters never got to vote because their names were close to criminals names thus they were illegally ostracized from the election.
2. Al Gore retracted his concession to Bush after hearing what was happening in Florida
3. The Supreme Court ended the process of recounting Florida's votes
4. the Florida state Supreme Court passed the case of Bush vs. Gore to the US Supreme Court
5. there was great confusion over what was a vote and what was not a vote
6. The Republicans stated that they were against dimpled chads, though their candidate George W. Bush's state policy was that the intent of a vote, an dimple, counted as a vote.
7. In the trial Bush vs. Gore Bush won in a 5 to 4 split of the court.
8. The recount was ended one day before the deadline.

Question:

1. Would the Republicans agree with what the Democrat were trying to do if their positions were switched?
2. What was the exact percent/ number of vote difference needed for a recount?
3. How many people from Florida vote in the 2000 election?
4. Is it normally extremely hard to get a recount?
5. Are Jim and Chris really complete opposites or was their views dramatized for the movie?
6. What would happen if there was a situation like that of in the movie Swing Vote?
7. Should there be new machines/ ballots for future elections?
8. What would have happened if Gore won in Bush vs. Gore?

2000 election

Prereading Questions:
1.  Should the recount of even taken place?
2.  Was it wrong of Gore to take back his concession?
3.  Should the Supreme Court of gotten involved?
4.  Should more time have been giving for a recount?
5.  Why were some counties so against a manual recount?

Facts/details from the reading:
1.  Florida's county election board use different methods for collecting votes.
2.  Neither cutoff dates for the recount would of been sufficient enough time.
3.  The assaults on the courts from the liberals were stunning.
4.  Liberals view conservatives primitives who are corrupt.
5.  Author believes that the courts are the heavy artillery for liberalism engaged. 

Postreading Questions:
1.  Should the courts get involved in any future elections?
2.  Should every state have a regulated voting system?
3.  How can the states stop any future voting flaws?
4.  Is it right for the political parties to call each other as primitive?
5.  Should Congress pass any bills that will give a clear solution for any future voting problems

factions

Madison's definition: A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.


When Madison talks about a faction, I think he is saying a group a people that are united and want the same purpose.  There is one thing that they all have in common.  As a whole the group of people are allowed to share a common interest, because of the rights that they would be granted from the Constitution.  I would say that faction still exist and play a role in the government.   

Questions:


1. Is a faction supposed to be a fraction of the people?
2.  Does the passion or interest that they share have to be constitutional?
3.  Where did the name faction come from
4.  Do the citizens have to be American citizens for a certain period of time?
5.  Were factions a major part of the Constitution

My Definition: A group of people united by a passion or interest against their rights, or the interest of the community.

Present Role: People in politics who are for the same thing, such as a political party.

response to constitution questions

1.  Would the founding fathers agree with the changes made to the Constitution, or do you think they would be disappointed?

 I think the founding fathers would be pleased with the changes that have been made to the Constitution.  They knew that the country would always be changing, that's why they made the Constitution able to  be edited.  If we could not change it, we would not be as far along in society as we already are, we would still be living in old days.  They might not agree with what we changed, but they would be able to understand our reasoning behind doing it.  


2. How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period? 

I also like this question because it makes people really think, not only about what the Constitution included, but about the way the citizens of the United States act as a whole. Everyone living in the US follow rules written on a piece of paper by people we never met before. We read about the founding fathers and see pictures of them, but we have never actually talked to them before. This piece of paper keeps our country alive and in order, and it is interesting to see how people follow it. The document has yet to crumple or fail, and I think because it keeps an order in the country, people will follow it. Sometimes people need guidelines to live life by, and the Constitution kind of acts as those guidelines.

Democracy in America

Facts

1. The wolf was one of the first species in the Endangered Species Act
2. Idaho citizens did not want the wolves there
3. Federal restrictions had to be followed for wolves by farmers and other citizens
4.  Almost 40% of crashes or deths on highways are because of drunk driving.
5. South Carolina objected to the government's call for a standard number on a breathalizer
6. 0.10 blood alcohol level was finally compromised for South Carolina
7. 0.08 was decided by the government and if it was not passed the government would take away highway funds
8. South Carolina did not like the penalty that would be given if 0.08 was not passed
9. In 2002 a bill was passed in North Carolina that 0.08 was considered as under the influence for drunk driving
10. Michigan provided much support for women moving from welfare to work

Questions

1. Why were wolves introduced to Idaho and not another state like montanta?
2. Were wolves threatening the people of Idaho or just the livestock? 
3. Why was South Carolina so against lowering the blood alcohol level for drunk driving?
4. Did South Carolina not realize raising the limit could possibly help save lives?
5. how much are highway funds?
6. iS south carolina always poor?
7. Why did some states not provide as much support for people when moving from welfare to work?
8. Which states have good welfare systems?
9. Why is the south more poor than the rest of America
10.Why is there a different welfare system for different states

Responses

1. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?


I believe that they were creating under the impression that it would not be changed.  It was a document that would uphold the rules for a whole nation.  And although they did not want it to be altered, i think that they left it somewhat vague and with more generalizations than specific situations so that over time it could be interpreted differently.


2.  How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period?"  

I think that it has only been changed a few times because when it was written, it was written with the intention of upholding order for a whole country no matter what.  It is a moral standard to follow and while technology changes, people havnt changed that much.  Not many changes have been needed because the founding fathers did a pretty good job of writing rules.

Federalist papers 51

Why is it so important to split power into three different parts?
Did this work effectively?
Is it good ambition counteracting bad ambition or is it totally different?
Is the government a new state of nature for us?
How does checks and balances work in the three different parts?


Ambition must be made to couteract ambition.
I chose this because it does not seem to make much sense, I'm assuming good ambitions counteracts bad ambition.

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
I chose this quote because its saying how humans have evolved from a state of nature where everything is mayhem to a different state of nature where its organized.

If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
I chose this quote because its saying that the majority vote can make everyone who was once opposed to it, change their minds.  I agree with this.


It is evident that each department should have a will of its own.
I chose this because you can see Madison establishing the separation of powers.
Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.
I chose this because it is defining how a representative democracy was formed, the people vote others into office to vote and represent them.

Federalist papers 10

How can we control factions?
What is the main reason for this government?
Could we distribute property better?
Is having all those different opinions that bad?
Why would Madison kill liberty to destroy a faction even though it is essential to political life?


As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other.
I chose this because it shows how if a man is on the right track in his mind then people can do what they want to be happy.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
I chose this quote because it say's we shouldn't judge ourselves because we will always make us win.


The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
 I chose this quote because it shows how the protection of property is very important to the government.


Every shilling which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
I chose this quote because it shows how the government can be corrupt when it comes to taxing.


Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
I chose this quote because factions are very bad in the development of our society
.

Interview chapter 1

 After awhile of deliberation i decided to interview my  friend Brendan Mckain to see what he knew about the government.  When i asked him what government meant to him he said "Government is the group of people that make the decisions for the country and on the country's behalf."  I was surprised he had such a decent answer.  My next question to him was which political issues he cared about, if any.  He said he cared about global warming because it is effecting him directly.  He hopes that whoever is elected next will somehow drum up the support needed to fix or slow it down.   With that answer i proceeded to the next question which was what he thought about diversity in our country.  He said "America is not like any country because when people are from France or Italy, usually they're either French or Italian, but we are the melting pot where all nationalities can live together."  I was extremely taken aback by this answer but i agree with it wholeheartedly.


The interview was going along nicely, he was kind of more into it than was necessary but in the end it helped.  My next question for him was how government affected his daily life.  At first he was not sure, but i prompted him a little just like in our class exercise and he eventually came up with a bunch of reasons the biggest ways being his freedom of speech and public school.  I then asked him what he thought about the us having a democracy.  He replied that he could not see America being run any other way and that it was the best government.  I also agreed with him on that.

a peoples history

It starts with talking about the men, our Founding Fathers, who created the Constitution.  They created a new Government, but it was still the same people who were in charge from the colonies.  The laws were made by the rich, and the large middle class did not feel that they were represented as they should be.  The laws were made by wealthy, white, Protestant men.  The average working man was not happy.  Most people in the population did not feel that the government was fair because the only people.  The only people who had money for campaigning were the ones who were already rich so the cycle was extremely hard to break for the people who did not have money.  The constitution was originally meant for everybody to be equal, but everyone who was not a white male landowner did not receive equal representation in the government and could not vote.  With a few additions, the constitution has seen to it that everyone is equal and it has lasted this long with success so it must be a pretty good document to base our country on.

Did the Founding fathers anticipate immediate problems with their decision of who is "we the people"?

Why did they create a government that was, in their eyes, fair but did represent the majority of the population?