As much as I am a fan of Chesterton, maybe he wasn't critical enough in accepting the idea of a proposition nation being fundamental to American identity and the 'founding.' After all, he visited America after the work of destroying the Constitution had already been in process for quite some time, and who knows where he got this notion from. Would he have had a different opinion of the founding if he had visited the South?

It's a reminder that we shouldn't give writers more authority than they merit.

Chesterton, What Is America?

How would traditional conservatives respond to what Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said about the founding? Are they merely relying on what the audience believes about the founding? Or are they passing on a view of the founding that does not have a historical basis, but has been put forth by certain parties seeking to replace a federation with a centralized national state? (I suppose this description applies even to Straussians like Jaffa.)

(We see the central place given to the Declaration of Independence, neglecting all other arguments and statements by the various state legislatures and their representatives, and should begin to realize how problematic this is.)

(At any rate, such statements are proper to (secular) history and consequently infallibility could not apply to them.)