Zinn suggests that the Constitution was simply a general codified indication of the needs and wants of the founders of the United States, and that of and by itself it has no power. The point that Zinn makes is two pronged. First, the document itself merely indicated what the founders wanted, as far as separation of powers, protection of individual rights, and limitations of what the state could or could not do. Secondly, the Constitution was meant to be "interactive;" it did not and can not stand by itself (Grover & Peschek, 1993, pp. 83-5). It requires participation, and the very nature of the factors limiting and allowing that participation is at the heart of the structure of our government.
As Marshall reminds us, the Constitution is not the only means by which the rights and privileges we all enjoy, can be secured. The Constitution can be considered a legally binding touchstone, put in place to protect what most of us consider normal, civil rights. Again, the factor of participation, and the standards therein are indicated. The Constitution, the documents and legal standings that surround it, are meant to be fluid and malleable. Thurgood Marshall defines the Constitution as being a true reflection of the societal mores of the day. It was, and still is meant to be reflective of current beliefs. If the rights and privileges described therein were rock-bound, no changes could ever have been made (Grover & Peschek, 1993, pp.86-9).
The Federalist Papers, explain in some detail the reasoning behind the way the Constitution was written. It was not self-evident to everyone living in the thirteen original colonies, that the thinking behind the Constitution was any more clear than the way governments operated in England, or the rest of Europe. It needed to be explained, and the Federalist NO. 10 in particular, explained to wavering supporters, how freedom and liberties would fair under the Constitution. As
...