The writing of the Constitution of the United States is an act of such genius that philosophers still wonder at its accomplishment and envy its results. Fifty-five typical American citizens met and argued for 127 days during a ferociously hot Philadelphia summer and produced one of the magisterial documents of world history. Almost without being aware of their great achievement, they fashioned a nearly perfect instrument of government, and I have studied it for nearly 70 years with growing admiration for its utility and astonishment at its capacity to change with a changing world. It is a testament to what a collection of typical free men can achieve. I think this is the salient fact about our Constitution. All other nations which were in existence in 1787 have had to alter their form. of government in the intervening years. France, Russia and China have undergone momentous revolutions. Stable nations like Sweden and Switzerland have had to change their forms radically. Even Great Britain, most stalwart of nations, has limited sharply the power of its monarch and its House of Lords. Only the United States, adhering to the precepts of its Constitution, has continued with the same form. of government. We are not of the younger nations of the world we are the oldest when it comes to having found the government which suits it best. It is instructive to remember the 55 men who framed this document. Elder statesmen like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin contributed little to the debate but greatly to the stability and inspiration of the convention. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most brilliant American of those days, missed the meetings entirely he was on diplomatic duty in France. The hard central work of determining the form. of government seems to have been done by a handful of truly great men. James Madison and George Mason of Virginia, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania. Alexander Hamilton of New York did not speak much but did exert considerable influence. The 55 contained a college president, a banker, a merchant, a great teacher of law, a judge, a major, a clergyman, a state governor and a surgeon. One-sixth of the members were foreign born. Two were graduates of Oxford University, one of St. Andrews in Scotland. But the group also contained some real nonentities, including a military man who had been court-martialed for cowardice during the Revolution, some who contributed nothing to the debate, and some who were not quite able to follow what was being debated. What this mix of men did was create a miracle in which every American should take pride. Their decision to divide the power of the government into three parts-Legislative, Executive, Judicial--was a master stroke, as was the clever way in which they protected the interests of small states by giving each state two Senators, regardless of population, and the interest of large states by apportioning the House of Representatives according to population. But I think they should be praised mostly because they attended to those profound principles by which free men have through the centuries endeavored to govern themselves. The accumulated wisdom of mankind speaks in this Constitution. What is the major point that the author is making in the article?