The intense polarization between founders like Hamilton and Jefferson prevented either side from creating national or local monopolies. This messy, unintentional outcome created an extraordinarily dynamic and open economy, which became a fertile ground for entrepreneurs by institutionalizing competing interests and preventing entrenched privileges.

The U.S. Constitution intentionally excluded women from political participation, defining power for men only. This foundational decision means the country began as what author Anna Malaika Tubbs defines as "American patriarchy," not a true democracy where power is vested in all people.

Despite growing talk of "national divorce," the idea of a state peacefully seceding is highly unrealistic. The federal government would almost certainly not allow it and would likely resort to military intervention to maintain the union, rendering the scenario a fantasy.

Latin America's strong legal commitment to national sovereignty and non-intervention was not an abstract ideal developed in a vacuum. It was a pragmatic and principled response, forged over centuries of living next to the United States as it expanded, conquered territory, and asserted its dominance across the hemisphere.

The U.S. founding documents, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, contain intentionally vague language. This was not an oversight but a necessary compromise to unify disparate interests, creating a built-in ambiguity that is the primary reason for 250 years of legal and political argument.

Contrary to popular belief, Article 3 of the Constitution provides a sparse blueprint for the federal judiciary. It establishes "one Supreme Court" but delegates the creation of lower courts and even the Supreme Court's size to congressional legislation, making the judiciary's structure far more flexible than assumed.

The Constitution lacks an "immigration clause." The Supreme Court established this authority as an "inherent power" derived from national sovereignty, not specific text. This plenary power, created by judicial interpretation, is assigned to Congress.

Historian Anne Applebaum observes that significant US constitutional amendments often follow profound national traumas like the Revolution or the Civil War. This suggests that without a similar large-scale crisis, mustering the collective will to address deep-seated issues like systemic corruption is historically difficult, as there is no single moment of reckoning.

The US was structured as a republic, not a pure democracy, to protect minority rights from being overridden by the majority. Mechanisms like the Electoral College, appointed senators, and constitutional limits on federal power were intentionally undemocratic to prevent what the founders called "mobocracy."