S
sebastiansdreams
JustineCredible said:Your assumption that I in anyway "enshrine" our founding fathers as "demi-gods" is equally presumptive of you.
I was speaking more in a generalization (notice I didn't use your name the way you used mine). I'm simply pointing out that it is a popular trend to give them some sort of continued voice into how we ought to decide our country's future, and that is pointless and counter-productive.
I do realize they were mere human beings. But to say that the original context of the Costitution was a "screw up" is simply crass.
You know for someone as liberal as you normally swing, you have a very black and white view of things. Just because I am arguing the Constitution is fallible and incomplete doesn't mean that I'm arguing it to be a complete screw up. I'm just saying that even our high and mighty founding fathers were nothing but very smart men. No more great than a great deal of very smart men that live here and now.
You say you would rather custome fit the Constitution so fit today's here and now, but you have absolutely Zero forethought for the generations to come!
To suggest that we continue to evolve the constitution so that it carry into the new century means to carry it into the next hundred years. Granted, a hundred years may not be that long to you at your age, BUT it is still half of the life span of our country, and that is certainly forethought in my book. Rather than spend countless hours looking at original intent, it is much more effective to look at current applicability.
That's what I find inexcusable behavior.
What if I beg from my knees?
The entire spirit of the Constitution allows for change and the realization that change is inevidable. If we were to pigeon hole our laws by making sure that future generation have MORE work to UNDO the crap we do just to fit our vision of the "Here and now" we destroy the spirit of our Constitution.
So you would rather we pigeon hole the Consititution into a game to guess what six or seven men two hundred years removed would have said about a certain issue? I agree, that the Constitution is a living and breathing concept, but it is you who seeks to pin point it into this idea that we can guess at what the founding fathers might have thought about whatever is going on. I do not think that we should ever abandon foresight nor hindsight. But we can't do so at the expense of the here and now. Why search for answers from dead men when there are equally capable men to carry on our Constitution further into the future?