Dear Editor,

The authors of the U.S. Constitution weren’t perfect, but they did understand that, broadly speaking, no one is perfect.

I think that was what prompted them to construct a constitution that provides a wide latitude for speech. A tyrant would love to have an official government definition of patriotism or citizenship, to name two examples. A broad allowance for free speech and thought is messy and inconvenient, but it also makes it harder for devious leaders to construct a nice, neat reality that fits their plan for total control.

Everywhere and every day, private citizens meet, and we get along imperfectly. The Founders knew that total control of speech by a central government usually means free speech for a favored few and censorship for the rest of us. That favored class is happy to plant the idea of speech control among the population and describe it as necessary and even patriotic. That only sounds good if you don’t think it through.

James Madison and his compatriots recognized the complexities associated with drawing up rules for self-government. They didn’t merely act, they thought long, hard and with great care before putting pen to paper. They didn’t presume to know the extent and character of freedom in all cases and at all times.

They had the humility that stopped them from simply believing that they were all-knowing. That effort must have given them many headaches.

Someone who begins a complex undertaking by confidently declaring victory while marching in no particular direction probably started out with a big head.

John Rucki

Amsterdam