How did the Founding Fathers design the Constitution to protect their own economic interests?

Answer 1

The problem with this question is that it assumes that the gentlemen who wrote the constitution had one set of interests which were against those of some other segment (presumeably the majority) of the population. This is modern left wing Marxist nonsense. The Constitution established a government which could protect the rights, both political and economic, of the citizens of the country and thereby, hopefully, insure the safety and prosperity of the country as a whole. Various aspects of the constitution deal with financial and economic matters that were meant to help assure a smoothly functioning economy that would benefit all segments of society. For instance, congress is given the authority to establish uniform bankruptcy rules throughout the country. That meant that all lenders and all debtors everywhere knew what legal protections there were for the repayment of debts. That made it much less risky for lenders to lend, and much easier for people both rich and poor to borrow. That helped the free flow of capital to start and maintain businesses and farms and thus protected everyones economic interests. The constitution also says that all debts that were contracted before it was ratified were still legally valid. This also protected everybody. If all of the debts, both private debts and those engaged by the government, had been rendered invalid by the adiption of the constitution ot would have caused a tremendous economic upheaval. Some left leaning theorists would say, "Yay, all the small farmers got out from under their debts!" But that would have put all the banks and other money lenders out of business and then there would have been no capital to keep all those farms and small businesses running. The whole economy would have come to a screeching halt. Thus the clause protected all interests, no just those of one segemnt of the population. The "Takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents the congress from siezing property without paying a fair price for it. It doesn't matter if the property is a vast corporation or a tiny plot of ground, the government can't take it away from you without paying for it. Since about 90% of the free population were landowners, and the rest had land available to them if they wanted to work it, this clearly protected everyone as well.Michael Montagne

Read Charles Beard and John Roche and decide for yourself.