• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Founding Fathers

Do you think the founding father's beliefs apply today?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Total voters
    24
I don't necessarily agree, but you (and they) certainly have a point. Setting rights to paper has certainly caused it share of problems, but I think overall it was a good idea.

It's just so damn hard to expand the list.

The problem with the BOR, that I see, is that we will never know the other side of the coin (if the BOR was not included).
 
Do you think that their political beliefs hold merit today?
Depends, really. There really isn't a yes or no answer to these questions.

Do you think that they have something to contribute today? Do you still hold their "genius" views that they had 220 years ago?
Some of the things they came up with were great. The Bill of Rights that was protected by a government structure that would be near impossible to infringe upon was their greatest achievement, in my opinion. The Monroe Doctrine, though it gets a lot of flak at times, was also important, and still stands today as a declaration of sovereignty. I also really like the ideals of a non-intrusive, representative government that is seemingly nonexistent today.

However, there are things that would never hold up in modern days. Washington's desire for isolationism was great when we were only 13 colonies on a vast continent. Today, with a population of over 300,000,000, that's just not feasible. Especially now that we're locked into a global economy. Slavery is also an unavoidable issue that should have never been. It denied the rights of men based on the view people of color were little more than property. A view I strongly disagree with, and one that does not match the intent of the Constitution. I also have to strongly disagree with the federalist movement. I strongly believe that a confederation (not to be confused with the CSA) would have been more in tune with the ideal of freedom. Federalists put the entire nation under the rule of a singular government, whereas a confederacy would have ensured state rights, by allowing a 'loose union', in which each individual state retains it's sovereignty, and chooses what is best for her people. No FBI, no CIA, no DEA, telling states what they can and cannot do, even if such a thing would be beneficial to the states people. Examples being DOMA, and the DEA's persistent refusal to acknowledge marijuana as having any medical benefit.

All in all, their intent was good, but once the voice f the prohibitionists, and the warhawks became louder than the voice of reason, it was curtains for the free, representative government that was once enjoyed.
 
Last edited:
a singular government, whereas a confederacy would have ensured state rights

This cannot exist or else we become a divided nation. Might I remind you, civil war is not good for economist.
 
Depends, really. There really isn't a yes or no answer to these questions.


Some of the things they came up with were great. The Bill of Rights that was protected by a government structure that would be near impossible to infringe upon was their greatest achievement, in my opinion. The Monroe Doctrine, though it gets a lot of flak at times, was also important, and still stands today as a declaration of sovereignty. I also really like the ideals of a non-intrusive, representative government that is seemingly nonexistent today.

However, there are things that would never hold up in modern days. Washington's desire for isolationism was great when we were only 13 colonies on a vast continent. Today, with a population of over 300,000,000, that's just not feasible. Especially now that we're locked into a global economy. Slavery is also an unavoidable issue that should have never been. It denied the rights of men based on the view people of color were little more than property. A view I strongly disagree with, and one that does not match the intent of the Constitution. I also have to strongly disagree with the federalist movement. I strongly believe that a confederation (not to be confused with the CSA) would have been more in tune with the ideal of freedom. Federalists put the entire nation under the rule of a singular government, whereas a confederacy would have ensured state rights, by allowing a 'loose union', in which each individual state retains it's sovereignty, and chooses what is best for her people. No FBI, no CIA, no DEA, telling states what they can and cannot do, even if such a thing would be beneficial to the states people. Examples being DOMA, and the DEA's persistent refusal to acknowledge marijuana as having any medical benefit.

All in all, their intent was good, but once the voice f the prohibitionists, and the warhawks became louder than the voice of reason, it was curtains for the free, representative government that was once enjoyed.
the BOR aside, I concur.... well put
 
Do you think that their political beliefs hold merit today? Do you think that they have something to contribute today? Do you still hold their "genius" views that they had 220 years ago?

I am not sure how to vote on this one and could write a book on this topic, but I will not bore everyone. The layout of the government is, for the most part, as it was planned that summer in 1787. We still have three branches of government, still have the same way for voting for President with the modification of the 12th Amendment. The House still is elected the same way and the Senate is totally different due to the change of the 17th Amendment. The requirements for office are still the same. This mostly applies today.

Some mention was made early on about slavery, women not able to vote, how Senators are elected as being different from what the Founding Fathers envsioned. Yes, they are different, but each issue was handled according to the idea of the Founding Fathers, the amendment process. The Amendment process applied, but unfortunately, does not apply today as it should.

Article I, Section 8 appears not to apply in the manner in which the Founders advocated.

The Bill of Rights still apply; however, some have been altered over time by the Courts.

Overall, I think what the Founding Fathers advocated should still apply; except, for changes made by way of Amendments that have changed it, less the 17th Amendment. I don't think it does, but that is what it should.

So, how do I answer? Do I think their political beliefs hold merit today? Yes. I don't believe that many of the Founders supported slavery, but realized that they had to accept it if they wanted all 13 colonies to unite under a constitution. And, let's recall that Vermont did ban slavery very early on. I agree that they did not believe that women should vote; however, there were parts where women could vote. As for constitutional authority, I believe that much of it has changed and without benefit of amendment.

My answer is their ideas should apply, but often they do not.
 
This cannot exist or else we become a divided nation. Might I remind you, civil war is not good for economist.
What are you talking about? A confederation is an alliance without the centralized federal component. Any sovereign state is free to go if necessary, but with the diversity of agriculture, industry, and production throughout the US, it would have been more advantageous to stay unified. Instead of forcing unification with boot-heel and gun, the states stay unified through the benefit gained by the association with neighboring states.
 
Back
Top Bottom