Read the paragraphs from “Let’s give up on the Constitution” by Louis Michael Seidman.
The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.
What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.
In this excerpt, Seidman uses several rhetorical devices to inspire his audience and influence their thinking. Find one rhetorical device used in this excerpt and explain how Seidman uses it to gain support, sway opinions, or enhance his political agenda. Use evidence from the text to support your response.
-- I am having trouble finding rhetorical devices, but in the text, the main thing that stands out to me is "And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country." Could this possibly be one of the rhetorical devices? --
No.
Do you know what shackles are? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shackle
Is he talking about real shackles? Or is he using the term rhetorically? If the latter, which device is he using here:
https://americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricaldevicesinsound.htm
(Scroll down a bit to find the list.)