- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But my point is that they created the Constitution and the ability to take it where WE wanted to take it. That was their intent. I do not mean their intent on details, only structure.
The fact is that they were in a position to build a Government system different than any in history.
And at the end of the day the women were still without a vote, and the blacks were still in shackles.
I've never had the opportunity to make my own form of government.
I don't look to poison the well. I just don't give 18th century men credit for what they had no vision for. How many of them would vote for Barrack Obama in their era (or this one?) How many of them would send American troops across the ocean to deal with Europan affairs? Their intentions have been re-interpreted and re-interpreted. Sooner or later, gay marriage will be what they intended too.
Except blacks who were provided much of the income for the nation and even Europeans.
You brought up their 18th century status. Would it really have been their intent or not?
The fact is that they were in a position to build a Government system different than any in history.
And at the end of the day the women were still without a vote, and the blacks were still in shackles
I've never had the opportunity to make my own form of government.
Oh, but we are talking about founding fathers. Not a black and white document that gets ammended generation to generation.
Wrong. There are two possibilities. Either it was the intent of the founders for the Constitution to be used for perpetuity, which means that interpretation would be necessary based on societal and technological changes, or it was their intent that the Constitution would be thrown out and rewritten after a time, when it was obvious that because of societal and technological changes, many parts of it no longer applied. I believe the former. If you believe neither, you are diminishing the intelligence of the founders, by claiming that they were so short sighted that they would have actually believe that what was written could literally apply to life 200 years later. I think they were a whole lot smarter than that.
It's interesting. This comment echoes what I've been saying. The Constitution's biggest value is it's usability across generations. It provides a structure in which to do that. I don't think the Amendment process is too difficult at all, simply because most issues that come up, their answers can be easily extrapolated from the Constitution itself. I like the second part of your first sentence a lot: "the ability to take it where WE wanted to take it."
I just want to point out the changes we have made to the Constitution since it was ratified.
Of course, we have the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Leaving 17 Amendments.
Of those...
13th Amendment freed the slaves.
15th Amendment gives suffrage to the slaves.
16th Amendment allows for a Federal Income Tax
18th Amendment Prohibition of alcohol
19th Amendment Womens suffrage
21st Amendment overturns Prohibition
24th Amendment abolishes poll taxes preventing voting
26th Amendment 18 is voting age
13th, 15th and 19th frees the slaves, expands the vote to all races and both genders. That is pretty potent stuff these amendments.
Yet, most of the Constitution has remained unmodified. So the FF intent as it applies to those parts of the constitution unchanged is relevant.
Amend away, brother, but that's not what Congress has been doing since FDR. The Amendment process is onerous and takes a super majority of States. What Congress has been doing is getting a 50 + 1 majority, and the SCOTUS has been letting them get away with it. And because of FDR, who packed the court with progressives.
You're probably scared of a lot of things.And the republicans packed it with six Catholics. That scares me.
You neglect the third option: the Amendment process. See my response to MSgt.
Yep you're absolutely right.
They weren't the holiest of holy.
They were fallible just like you and I.
That still does not take away from the basic idea of, limited state governance with maximum self governance.
Now applied equally to all people of all races and genders.
I would live in abject fear of what moronic ideas that would come from a new form of government.
(not saying you're moronic)
The ideas of what people now consider a right is completely illogical and unreasonable.
I'm not advocating any amendment. What I advocate is Congress abiding by it, as written.No I didn't. That's a given. However, there is no need to amend the Constitution, if the law is right there, already.
I'm not advocating any amendment. What I advocate is Congress aiding by it, as written.
You're probably scared of a lot of things.
Limited state governance is impossible when the governed transcend national boundaries.
So in a world where the literacy rate dwarves the 18th century. In a world where we understand more about our world and about how we function as humans, than any time previously. In a world where the large majority of people understand that tough there may be differences of race, religion, language, and gender we shouldn't discriminate accordingly.
You find fear the government this world would bring. You believe that the world of racism, sexism, large ignorance and fear of the ignorant masses makes a better government?
So open a book.Only ignorance.
I have already read more books in my lifetime than you will ever dream of.So open a book.
Oh really? Where's the clause for Obamacare?I didn't say you were. And I advocate using the Constitution to deal with current situations. Everything we need is right there as the founders intended, which is why the Constitution does NOT cover everything, but can be used for nearly everything.
Right now I'm dreaming of two or three.I have already read more books in my lifetime than you will ever dream of.
The legal documents that they wrote (i.e. the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence, etc.) provide a framework for our government, but beyond that their opinions/thoughts/etc. are meaningless to the world of today. Once they no longer held official government positions (or at the very least once they were dead), their opinions on how the constitution/etc. should be interpreted ceased to be relevant.
you feel the same way about the rotting and perhaps evaporated twits who foisted the New Deal, Great Society and other unconstitutional garbage on us that continues to infect the very fabric of our society today?
"Gee, Ma, why has political debate in America deteriorated so much lately?"
What is so important that the government needs to be involved in so many things?
Things that have been dealt with privately for a long time.
I think you, like others, are making excuses for them.
Going to argue that slavery wasn't part of the Founding Father's world? And continued even when they had the ability to build a Government from scratch?You give modern society way to much credit, more than I'm giving the FF's.
A majority of people think that limited resources can be rationed efficiently by government.
They aren't that much different.
Now people think I should be forced to accept their version of right, even when facts contradict it.
They are willing to use force to make me comply.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?