• 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!

Our Founding Fathers' Ideas

What should be done with the Founders' ideas?


  • Total voters
    58
We should not treat the Founding Fathers as if they were gods whose opinions cannot be disagreed with, but it's not a bad idea to read what they had to say.

After all, even the FFs didn't agree on everything.

The problem is that many people who should know better (including posters here) think that whenever there is a controversy over the Constitution, all you have to do is see what the FFs say and an answer will magically appear. That concept is ridiculous, of course.
 
Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote them. Madison is considered to be the Father of the Constitution and comments on the absurdity of the modern liberals interpretation of the so-called general welfare clause, in Federalist 41, and a portion of which I already quoted. A lengthier passage follows here:

Great, you know what Madison's view was. What was Hamilton's?

"The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision." -Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufacture
 
They swear to uphold the constitution, not the additional/other writings of the founding fathers. And, the constitution is a fluid document that has been amended over time, as the founding fathers intended.

Try again.
So my right to keep and bear arms should include thermo-nuclear arms, by your logic.

Try again.
 
We should not treat the Founding Fathers as if they were gods whose opinions cannot be disagreed with, but it's not a bad idea to read what they had to say.

After all, even the FFs didn't agree on everything.

The problem is that many people who should know better (including posters here) think that whenever there is a controversy over the Constitution, all you have to do is see what the FFs say and an answer will magically appear. That concept is ridiculous, of course.

No one is treating them as gods, that's just loading the debate with nonsense.

It was the ideas they formed out of the enlightenment that were important.
The Constitution was plainly written, only the foolish and power hungry seek to change it's intent.

Narrow minded people have a hard time understanding this.
 
No one is treating them as gods, that's just loading the debate with nonsense.

Actually, I've seen many authors, particularly from the lunatic religious right, who want to use quotes from the Founding Fathers as a basis to shift our society over into a much more theocratic stance, with the misguided claim that the founding fathers wanted this to be a strictly Christian nation.
 
Actually, I've seen many authors, particularly from the lunatic religious right, who want to use quotes from the Founding Fathers as a basis to shift our society over into a much more theocratic stance, with the misguided claim that the founding fathers wanted this to be a strictly Christian nation.

They are using an appeal to authority as a mean of making their argument.
That does not mean that they are treating the FF as gods.
 
Great, you know what Madison's view was. What was Hamilton's?

And one must remember that Hamilton wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers (Hamilton 51, Madison 29, Jay 5). It is Hamilton in Federalist 78 that set the groundwork for judicial review, and it is Hamilton who recognized the importance in Constitutional interpretation because of societal changes.
 
Was he specific?

The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. -Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

You can read his report here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
 
They are using an appeal to authority as a mean of making their argument.
That does not mean that they are treating the FF as gods.

In the sense that they treat them as superhumans whose opinions are more important than those of average Americans, yes, they are.

Such people treat the founding fathers as if they were unified, saw themselves as superhuman, and were incapable of error. The founding fathers would have been appalled to be treated in that way. They saw themselves as average men.
 
In the sense that they treat them as superhumans whose opinions are more important than those of average Americans, yes, they are.

Such people treat the founding fathers as if they were unified, saw themselves as superhuman, and were incapable of error. The founding fathers would have been appalled to be treated in that way. They saw themselves as average men.

They were very intelligent people, capable of all sorts of natural human errors.
Compared to the rest of the U.S. their ideas were definitely more important, in my opinion.
 
Compared to the rest of the U.S. their ideas were definitely more important, in my opinion.

Why? They never used a computer, flew on an airplane, or fought a war in another country across the ocean. They were farmers and silversmiths and country lawyers.

Were they important? Sure. But they never intended the government of this nation to be set in an unchanging stasis dictated by the mores and beliefs of the early 19th century.
 
They were very intelligent people, capable of all sorts of natural human errors.
Compared to the rest of the U.S. their ideas were definitely more important, in my opinion.

I would say that their ideas weren't more important. Their ideas were more original and important for the time in which they lived. I'm not sure if a group of original thinkers, who also had the ability to put their thoughts into practice has existed before or since. The FF's great attribute was that their ideas had not been though of previously and/or they were able to enact these thoughts. They were not gods. They were very smart people at the right time in history.
 
Why? They never used a computer, flew on an airplane, or fought a war in another country across the ocean. They were farmers and silversmiths and country lawyers.

Well, if I recall correctly, Franklin did go over to Paris and help stir up the revolution. Spoke at salons, etc. He was part of the inspiration for it, I believe.
A small part.
But no, he did not do any actual fighting.
 
I would say that their ideas weren't more important. Their ideas were more original and important for the time in which they lived. I'm not sure if a group of original thinkers, who also had the ability to put their thoughts into practice has existed before or since. The FF's great attribute was that their ideas had not been though of previously and/or they were able to enact these thoughts. They were not gods. They were very smart people at the right time in history.

I think you're getting close to my opinion, which is that they were original thinkers, your term not mine and I like it, implementing their ideas and publishing their thoughtful opinions about it in the Federalist Papers, The Federalist Papers were of course published in New York periodicals to bring to public the thinking behind the compromise and balance of the Constitution.

What makes these writings so important is that they are the first thoughtful arguments made in favor of the Constitution. They have already had many of the discussions that you all will recycle. Between the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers you get a good picture of the issues that are still as pertinent today.
 
I think you're getting close to my opinion, which is that they were original thinkers, your term not mine and I like it, implementing their ideas and publishing their thoughtful opinions about it in the Federalist Papers, The Federalist Papers were of course published in New York periodicals to bring to public the thinking behind the compromise and balance of the Constitution.

What makes these writings so important is that they are the first thoughtful arguments made in favor of the Constitution. They have already had many of the discussions that you all will recycle. Between the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers you get a good picture of the issues that are still as pertinent today.

I would agree with you. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are some of the most cited documents in Constitutional case law... and have been for over 200 years. It is these papers that give the Constitution it's life and it's soul.
 
From this report:
That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Therefore Hamilton agrees with me, that much of what Congress has done since FDR has been a usurpation of the Constitution.
 
Why? They never used a computer, flew on an airplane, or fought a war in another country across the ocean. They were farmers and silversmiths and country lawyers.

Were they important? Sure. But they never intended the government of this nation to be set in an unchanging stasis dictated by the mores and beliefs of the early 19th century.


Even Jefferson stated at the time that he thought the Constitution would need to be rewritten every 20 years or so to take into consideration a changing society.

I disagree with him, of course, as do many other Founding Fathers -- which just goes to show that you can't rely upon the FF to solve every Constitutional question, because even they disagreed.
 
From this report:


Therefore Hamilton agrees with me, that much of what Congress has done since FDR has been a usurpation of the Constitution.

How can it be usurpation if we, the people, using the process provided by the Constitution, have changed it?
 
How can it be usurpation if we, the people, using the process provided by the Constitution, have changed it?

Because you're missing the point. This isn't about amending the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't been amended in any way to address this issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom