+1, and might also add John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

@Meir Questionable statement regarding regarding "religious people" as the only one fit to to govern, but hey, this goes to show that morality changes with time and no piece of paper can be expected to stand there forever without modifications.

@Ant Reread the statement. It's not about who's fit to govern, but about the people - the common citizenry.

@Meir Well, same thing though right? Today no one thinks that only religious people can be good citizens :)

@Ant I wouldn't say that no one thinks that. But the ones who do tend to be very religious...

@Ant Arguably, under current conditions the Constitution isn't working as well as was intended - i.e., that it's being (as the OP put it) ignored, reinterpreted, or transformed drastically.

@Meir Although in the present case, I think the problem is more with the immorality of those governing, not the governed. The populace who put them in power were mostly deluded, not immoral (somewhat like how Hitler rose to power), and gerrymandering is used to perpetuate control.

@Barmar Could be. It still is probably the case, though, that a "moral and religious people" wouldn't put up with the current types of politicians (of both parties), and would long since have voted them out of office, or not voted them in to begin with. Also, given that the US has few formal qualifications for office (there's not even anything like the patrician-plebeian divide in the Roman Republic), the politicians are drawn from the people and, to some degree at least, reflect its qualities (even if, perhaps, in exaggerated form).

@Meir Without descending into a political debate, my point was that change must be an integral part of the democratic process, and that includes changing the constitution when needed to adjust for changes in culture, technology and society. Though of course, since it's a more "fundamental" body of law, the requirements for such changes should also be higher than for regular laws :)

Fortunately - the Founding Fathers included the First and Second Amendments in that constitution.

@Ant Some of those changes in culture and society (ignoring technology for the moment, as that's just a tool, albeit one which affects the other two) have been for the better, others much for the worse. It would be better - and something that those on both sides of the political divide can accomplish - if we were able to rediscover the virtues of the Revolutionary War generation that produced the Constitution, rather than taking the changes for the worse as inevitable and having to redesign the Constitution to accommodate them.

@Barmar There might be some of that, but there is also plenty of tyranny from the people. Many are bigots against something, and they tend to control that something. I've not met many who truly believe if freedom. Bob supports gays and foreigners but denounces guns and anti-vaxxers, Tim supports guns but denounces foreigners, Sue supports foreigners and anti-vaxxers but denounces gays. We can't call ourselves free until your freedom stops where mine starts, until gays, foreigners, gunners, anti-vaxxers, etc., etc., etc. are all free to live their lives how they want.

@Meir The problem is that gerrymandering subverts the democratic process. So once a group is in power, they can subvert the will of the people to oust them (there's another recent question about how effectively this can be done).

@Aaron That's the libertarian ideal, but it's no more feasible in practice than pure communism.

@Barmar It was harder to oust the British from the colonies than it is to vote politicians out of office, yet it was done. It was likewise harder for the citizenries of various Eastern European nations to oust communist governments, yet it was done. Blaming bad government on gerrymandering - where, unlike in those examples, no one even needs to put their life on the line to vote a certain way - is little more than an excuse.

@Meir Good luck implementing a civilian rebelion against the modern US military.

@Barmar Reread my comment, please. No rebellion against the modern US military is needed in order to vote gerrymandering politicians out of office. My point was that even when such rebellion was needed, it was done.

@Meir I don't blame it entirely on gerrymandering. Many honest people also believe in facets of the Republican agenda. You can't pick and choose -- if you like their stance on gun control, you may vote for them even if you don't agree with pro-life policies.

@Barmar That is only your opinion and can be said of all governments we've tried, and anyone can use that statement against ideals they don't support. "The democratic ideal is no more feasible in practice than pure communism." See how that works when one key word is replaced? And I do believe that true democracy has proven to be little more than the tyranny of the majority. 75% of everyone agreeing on doing something does not make that something right. The primary benefit of democracy is that usually the tyranny is mild - usually.

@Barmar True. I still maintain, as I said above, that Adams's "moral and religious people" wouldn't just accept that kind of accommodation as a necessary evil. Take for example the anti-slavery factions of the 1840s-50s: seeing that neither of the parties of that time represented their interests in that regard, they founded a new party which eventually gained power and put those interests into effect. The problem, then, is not so much gerrymandering (though it makes a convenient excuse), it's that both of the current major parties are old and creaking and exist for no reason than inertia.

You're trying to turn this into a simple "black and white" argument. People aren't either moral or immoral, there's a whole spectrum.

Is there a reference for the Franklin's quote?

@sds This site says that it was first published in this page of The American Historical Review, Vol. 11, 1906.

@Ant I think "religous" has more than one meaning. This one might be "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful". I think you're taking Franklin out of context.