美国独立战争时期的重要文件，特别是《独立宣言》和《宪法》，被用来为美国的政治制度提供道德基础。但开国元勋们的意思并不总是很清楚。例如，“上帝”在宪法中被提到两次——这是否意味着美国应该是一个基督教国家?两位哲学家都担心，语言中的歧义会使解释变得异常复杂。

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jack Rakove joins the conversation. Does the Constitution claim (as some would have it) that we are supposed to be nation based on free enterprise? Jack points to the Constitution’s commerce clause and emphasizes that the answer to this question depends on how we define “commerce.” Ken suggests that even if the Constitution places constraints on what the government can do, the Founding Fathers must have intended to leave many decisions up to the deliberations of the people. Jack agrees. Does it make sense to say whether the Founding Fathers had free enterprise in mind as the right economic system for the U.S., since they couldn’t have considered alternatives such as communism and socialism? Jack tells us that the Founding Fathers thought that private individuals should initiate most economic activity, but early on the national government did undertake to organize corporations and other economic projects.

Were the Founding Fathers mostly practical thinkers or were they also interested in philosophical questions about government and ethics? Jack tells us that they had a deep understanding of the history of political philosophy. The hosts then receive a radical question via email: why should we be concerned with the Founding Fathers at all? Wasn’t the Constitution just an early, imperfect attempt at giving our government its proper foundation? Ken reminds us that the Constitution was not a soaring declaration of moral principle, but an urgent attempt to found a nation.

有人打来电话询问宪法中是否提到了家庭价值观。他们不是，但那不是意外，杰克回答。开国元勋们打算让家庭问题成为州法律问题。事实上，他们对国家权力的限制很少。一个值得注意的例外是，各州不被允许限制信仰自由或宗教信仰自由。三位教授最后讨论了美国革命文献与当今美国文化中独特的价值观之间的关系。

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 5:58): Angela Kilduff speaks with members of the Tea Party about the goals and ideals guiding the movement.