This is a master class in how to construct an ad hominem argument.

What makes it such a good example of fallacious reasoning is that it crafts a pretty emotionally compelling narrative--complete with the feeling of give and take to add to the perception of reasonableness--without making one single substantive point against the content of the Constitution.

If you turn off your rational brain and just let your emotions run the show, you feel: "Okay, some good, but, oh! Some bad! Some really bad! Fine, it had its day--but now: throw it out!"

However, if you want to know whether the Constitution has sound principles despite being created by flawed people (flaws that were especially common at the time), this article gives a resounding yes it does in the initial admission of some of the Constitution's good points--and it says nothing against its soundness (in its current form, as amended).

So the actual arguments presented here argue directly against the thesis: no valid reason was given to create a new system.

It was all rhetorical sleight of hand and fallacious reasoning. It was all attacking the character of the drafters of the Constitution without examining whether the result was good despite their character flaws.

That this argument was poor does not mean that we should keep the system--that would be an example of the fallacy fallacy--but it does suggest that the author either can't reason straight, or doesn't think you can.

To Mr. Kass, I implore: take your readers' intelligence more seriously. If you want to include emotionally gripping statements to increase salience, fine. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by providing zero argument and zero evidence for your point. If you have good arguments, give them too. If you don't, try to find some, or consider that you may well be wrong and you should first spend your effort trying to be correct before spending effort trying to sway other people to your perspective.

To readers, I implore: keep your wits about you. Even people who are on your side might be pulling the wool over your eyes (and maybe their own). If it is actually a good idea to create a new system, there will be sound, compelling reasons to do so, not just emotional trickery.