• 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
The ability for them to rebel was larger than it would be today, much because of our current technology around travel, considering the enemy they were fighting was several thousand miles away, separated by an ocean.

And who is saying we should give it up?

Then why should we change what we have?

What purpose would it serve to amend The Constitution further?
 
In short, I know the Constitution isn't perfect, but I strongly suspect it is far better than what we'd end up with, if we appointed a bunch of "modern thinkers" to write a new one.

I'll stick with the Founders, thanks.

Do you know of john rawls?:2razz:
 
What's all the hoopla about the founding ideas and The Constitution?

What are we debating for?

I believe we are discussing, in this thread, the FF and Constitutional interpretation... as any thread about the founding fathers eventually moves towards. I do not believe that we are discussing amending the Constitution, though that might be an ancillary issue.
 
The flavor of the day is interpretation.

I believe we are discussing, in this thread, the FF and Constitutional interpretation... as any thread about the founding fathers eventually moves towards. I do not believe that we are discussing amending the Constitution, though that might be an ancillary issue.

It be in English, Old English I'll grant you but what's so hard to understand?
 
All we can ever do is build upon the laws and ideas of yesterday. Hell, we're still building upon Greek and Roman political/educational philosophy.
 
It be in English, Old English I'll grant you but what's so hard to understand?

I don't find much difficulty in understanding them at all. Some people believe that they are interpreted differently, however.
 
Yes. So?



Rawles is no Franklin or Jefferson.

Maybe, maybe not. He did build upon classic liberal thinking and is a fundemental part of modern liberalism. He is an example of someone who is a modern thinker who did not resort to romanticism like you suggest of all modern thinkers. He would also contend I think that many of the principles in the constitution are ones that most rational people would agree upon if they were in the same situation as our founding fathers were.
 
I don't find much difficulty in understanding them at all. Some people believe that they are interpreted differently, however.

I'm pretty much assured that there is few to no spelling and punctuation errors.

With that in mind, we get a person who specializes in 18th century literature and sentence structure to make it understandable in modern English.

Problem solved.
 
I'm pretty much assured that there is few to no spelling and punctuation errors.

Probably true.

With that in mind, we get a person who specializes in 18th century literature and sentence structure to make it understandable in modern English.

Problem solved.

Wanna see how many different interpretations there are of the Hebrew bible, by linguistic scholars? ;)
 
Wanna see how many different interpretations there are of the Hebrew bible, by linguistic scholars? ;)

Good lord, it's English.

It's not a 5000 year old dead language.
(Not saying Hebrew is but the Hebrew Bible is much older and much different than something from 200-300 years ago.)

I feel like we're reaching around our elbow to get to our ass here.
 
And the amendment process is how the constitution is changed, which is why it is an evolving document.

:roll:

Actually no, most people who use the term "evolving document" or "living document" don't have amending in mind at all.
 
Good lord, it's English.

It's not a 5000 year old dead language.
(Not saying Hebrew is but the Hebrew Bible is much older and much different than something from 200-300 years ago.)

I feel like we're reaching around our elbow to get to our ass here.

Read some Old English. It can be pretty confusing at times. Besides, you know those linguists. Can't agree on anything.
 
Read some Old English. It can be pretty confusing at times. Besides, you know those linguists. Can't agree on anything.

Just turn in upside down.
Things get much clearer. ;)

400px-OE_800.JPG
 
Read some Old English. It can be pretty confusing at times. Besides, you know those linguists. Can't agree on anything.


Actually it isn't Old English. That would be from about 1000 years ago, like the earliest translations of Beowulf.

It isn't Middle English. That would be around King James' time, as in the KJV bible, which isn't nearly as hard to understand as the original Beowulf.

The Founder's words are actually just a slightly archaic version of modern English.


Acting as if the Constitution is written in some kind of indecipherable language, like Babylonian, is just a bit ridiculous. It isn't hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
I've never understood this ancestor-worship of our Founding Fathers (and that's exactly what it is).

Our Founding Fathers owned slaves, disenfranchised women, embargoed the entire world, went to war for silly reasons, committed genocide against Native Americans, and had temper tantrums at mild tax increases. For many of them, even their support for representative democracy or checks and balances was wavering at best.

The Constitution was basically a compromise that was cobbled together from the various ideas that were floating around at one particular moment in time 221 years ago. Anyone who think it's perfect or even close to perfect is deluding themselves.

Some of their ideas can be built upon. Some of their ideas were just ridiculous and have no place in the United States of 2010, which (if you haven't noticed) has changed a bit since 1789.
 
Last edited:
I've never understood this ancestor-worship of our Founding Fathers (and that's exactly what it is).

Our Founding Fathers owned slaves, disenfranchised women, embargoed the entire world, went to war for silly reasons, committed genocide against Native Americans, and had temper tantrums at mild tax increases. For many of them, even their support for representative democracy or checks and balances was wavering at best.

It's not ancestor worship, it reveling in the presence of good ideas.

What part of not retaining power only for the elite members of society is bad?

The Constitution was basically a compromise that was cobbled together from the various ideas that were floating around at one particular moment in time 221 years ago. Anyone who think it's perfect or even close to perfect is deluding themselves.

Some of their ideas can be built upon. Some of their ideas were just ridiculous and have no place in the United States of 2010, which (if you haven't noticed) has changed a bit since 1789.

Yea, technology has changed but humans have not.
You may want people to evolve, you can't make them though.

Of course none of what said has been a good enough example of why we should limit self governance.
 
Last edited:
Yea, technology has changed but humans have not.

Yes, they have.

You may want people to evolve, you can't make them though.

I don't have to "make them"; they already did.
In the FFs' time, I wouldn't have even been considered human (although I would've been considered human enough to own other humans that were considered even less human than myself).

People have evolved a lot. And we're not done yet.
 
Yes, they have.

I don't have to "make them"; they already did.
In the FFs' time, I wouldn't have even been considered human (although I would've been considered human enough to own other humans that were considered even less human than myself).

People have evolved a lot. And we're not done yet.

You would be considered human, just not intelligent or rational enough to handle your own affairs.

Is it sexist, yeah definitely and I don't support it.
Does that make someone universally wrong, no way.

One or several wrongs doesn't = always wrong.
I'm wrong a lot, so were they, we're all human.

We still use government to this day to discriminate for arbitrary reasons. Most people don't think of it in the same context but it's still discrimination.
 
You would be considered human, just not intelligent or rational enough to handle your own affairs.

I would be considered chattel because I don't have a penis, just not as chattel-like as people with browner skin (with or without penises).

I'd say people have changed just a tad.

One or several wrongs doesn't = always wrong.
I'm wrong a lot, so were they, we're all human.

The same could be said about Hitler, I suppose.
We all have human DNA, I guess.
That's where the similarities begin and end, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Back
Top Bottom