kamino

If you found a document from the forefathers that absolutely defined the constitution and its meaning, but it was different from your political views, would you burn it?

__________________
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
-Benjamin Franklin

mikhail

When i think of the founding fathers i think of Thomas Jefferson he is America he was the brain of America flawed as everyman is but without him you can forget everything.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Curious George

First of all, I'm not sure how it would matter either way. There are countless sources from numerous founding fathers that explain what the constitution means. Their thought processes before and during the drafting of the document can even be read in many circumstances. From the Federalist Papers to personal letters to their own memoirs and everything in between, it's easy to determine, in many cases, what individual founders were thought about the constitution, either in its entirety, with reference to specific sections, or both. Unfortunately, people draw from those sources only when it supports their agenda and ignore those sources when it doesn't.

Even if that were not the case though, I would never burn any historical document I came across, even if it I thought it would be harmful my interests.

Bodhisattva

This makes little sense.
... and I mean that literally.
Are you ripping on T Jeffersson?

Also, I agree with Curious George.

First of all, I'm not sure how it would matter either way. There are countless sources from numerous founding fathers that explain what the constitution means. Their thought processes before and during the drafting of the document can even be read in many circumstances. From the Federalist Papers to personal letters to their own memoirs and everything in between, it's easy to determine, in many cases, what individual founders were thought about the constitution, either in its entirety, with reference to specific sections, or both.

__________________

Curious George

Btw, I didn't vote in the poll because the options that are available do not apply to me. I wouldn't burn any historical document and it's unlikely that I'd have to admit I was wrong about something (since I rarely argue over what the founding fathers thought or intended) or that I'd choose to conform my opinion to what was in the document (unless the document contained a very good argument for why I should do so).

Kandahar

Probably neither. Who says I have to believe the same thing that the Founding Fathers believed? Where is it explicitly written that our Constitution is always supposed to be interpreted with the original intent in mind? That is only one of many legal philosophies.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

Curious George

The "interpretation" of legal documents is something I find to be very dangerous. The idea that a perfectly understandable sentence can be "interpreted" to mean something completely different from its literal meaning has gotten us into a lot of trouble in this country. This practice has led (and continues to lead) to the erosion of our guaranteed rights and freedoms. If black can be interpreted to mean white and white can be interpreted to mean black so long as we have enough votes or a judge with the right political leanings, why even write anything down in the first place?

I don't think that's what you were saying but I thought I'd make my feelings on that known anyway. It's a particular pet peeve of mine.

Bodhisattva

Again, you are stating my thoughts exactly.

Can I hire you to be my spokesman?

Kandahar

What is "perfectly understandable" to you might not be perfectly understandable to someone else. For example, the Second Amendment includes the qualifier about "a well-regulated militia." The amendment is very poorly written and the grammar is atrocious (even for the 18th century). Interpreting it isn't exactly a no-brainer.

Another example: Throughout Article II of the Constitution, the president is referred to as "he." Is this pronoun being used in the masculine sense or the neutered sense? If we're going by original intent, I would have to assume it is the former.

Another example: The president can (and shall) be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Jaywalking is a misdemeanor. Smoking in a public building is a misdemeanor. Should the president be impeached for these offenses?



I'm not suggesting that "free speech" be interpreted to mean "no free speech." But the Constitution is intentionally vague, and for good reason. Many people who claim to support a strict interpretation are the same people who would like to pretend that the Ninth Amendment simply does not exist.

I have a difficult time reconciling the Ninth Amendment with any attempt to derive the "original intent" of the Constitution.

rathi

Not to mention that the founding fathers didn't have opinions on many problems we have today, because they didn't exist in 18th century. The FCC regulates our ability to broadcast television and radio in this country. How free speech intertwines with such issues is impossible to look to the founders for guidance. Furthermore, who even says the founders are always right? They certainly managed to set up an amazing system of government, but they also were slave owners, occasionally genocidal to the natives, and treated women as second class citizens. The past certainly provides important information that we can use today, but its not the solution to all our problems. The 2nd amendment issues will never be resolved by finding some historical document, as weapons have changed to much in the intervening years.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.