• 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 majority of the Constitution WAS written so as to be interpreted in a specific and easily defined manner, yet we still have intellectually dishonest liberals and progressives who think black is white and up is down; just look at their creative view of the Second Amendment, for starters.

Ignoring the fact that there are plenty of ambiguous and unclear things in the constitution, it's funny how often conservatives hide behind that argument when it's against something they don't like, and forget all about it when THEY want to make an unconstitutional law. Seems awfully hypocritical don't you think?

This country was FOUNDED BY THEM. They FOUGHT AND DIED so that you could freely malign them from the comfort of your private property. Their opinions are not more important, but they are certainly still relevant.

You're welcome to your opinion of course. If you want to take the founder's opinions into account when interpreting the constitution, go right ahead, just don't expect everyone to do it. Personally I think their opinions are irrelevant, since they're dead. If they wanted an unambiguous document, they had their chance to write it. They didn't, so it's up to us to interpret it, not them.

Honestly, I greatly respect them for that. I think leaving certain things ambiguous so that they could be interpreted as needed by future generations was a brilliant move on their parts.

You're just a typical liberal ingrate.

Yawn. Yet another poster, who, when they have no valid counter-arguments results to insults.

That's precisely what you're saying. If you think we should totally disregard the views of our Founders when interpreting the document THEY WROTE then you're throwing that part of our history into the dustbin.

Again, that's not what I said at all. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're welcome to take the founder's opinions (if you think you know what they were) into account when making your decisions about things, just don't expect the same of everyone.

What's creepy about maximizing individual liberty!? Is there something wrong with wanting to be left alone by intrusive government and liberal busy-bodies?

How Orwellian of you...

What's creepy is wanting to give more weight to the opinions of dead people than live ones. What's creepy is wanting our government to stagnate rather than grow and change with the times.
 
The Founders are irrelevant! They failed to foresee the advertising leviathan that has emerged and displaced their noble thoughts and profound commentaries. All tremble before the mighty Flo! Destroyer of the Founders and oppressor of humanity!

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPhq_gC9pZs"]YouTube- Progressive Insurance Commercial - Flo Craves Tacos in "Back Up"[/nomedia]


Egad, how will we ever contend with such a mighty force as thee!?
 
I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.

What are your opinions on the Founders' ideas and what we should be doing with them (if anything at all)?

We need to expound upon the concept of individual liberty (specifically the inalienable right of property) to apply to all persons and to include the concept of individual sovereignty or self ownership.
 
Last edited:
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.

lol so you think the intent of the law by those who wrote it is irrelevant?
 
lol so you think the intent of the law by those who wrote it is irrelevant?

Yes. How many times to I have to say this?

The only opinions that the founders had which are relevant to us today are those that they turned into laws.
 
Ignoring the fact that there are plenty of ambiguous and unclear things in the constitution...

I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm well aware that it contains ambiguities, which is why I think we ought to take into account the Founders' views when interpreting said ambiguities.

However, there ARE parts of the Constitution that are completely unambiguous, but that doesn't stop people from distorting the plain meaning of words.

...it's funny how often conservatives hide behind that argument when it's against something they don't like, and forget all about it when THEY want to make an unconstitutional law. Seems awfully hypocritical don't you think?

I agree. Not sure what that has to do with me, though.

You're welcome to your opinion of course. If you want to take the founder's opinions into account when interpreting the constitution, go right ahead, just don't expect everyone to do it. Personally I think their opinions are irrelevant, since they're dead. If they wanted an unambiguous document, they had their chance to write it. They didn't, so it's up to us to interpret it, not them.

So long as you accept the fact that your interpretation will be inherently inferior to the one informed by the actual writers of the legal document in question.

I also find it sad that you consider the opinion of such brilliant and principled individuals "irrelevant". Typical liberal hubris.

Honestly, I greatly respect them for that. I think leaving certain things ambiguous so that they could be interpreted as needed by future generations was a brilliant move on their parts.

How ironic. You're using the alleged intentions of the Founders to justify your position. I thought they were irrelevant?

Yawn. Yet another poster, who, when they have no valid counter-arguments results to insults.

If you don't like being called an ingrate then cease acting like one.

Again, that's not what I said at all. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're welcome to take the founder's opinions (if you think you know what they were) into account when making your decisions about things, just don't expect the same of everyone.

You're saying the Founders' opinions are irrelevant. The obvious implication of this is to throw said time period into the trash. That's the logical conclusion of your position; sorry if you don't like having your own position thrown back in your face.

What's creepy is wanting to give more weight to the opinions of dead people than live ones.

I never said I wanted to give their opinions MORE weight. I just think that they should be given SOME weight, as opposed to none at all, which is what you're suggesting.

It helps if you actually remember what was said and by whom.

What's creepy is wanting our government to stagnate rather than grow and change with the times.

There's this thing - dunno if you've heard of it - called "the Amendment process". It's a mechanism for change and adaption that was put in the Constitution so as to allow future generations latitude in the governance of their nation. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it.
 
You okay there man? Did you just have a little stroke or something?

Just addressing the argument put forth by Mega. Apparently, modern advertising techniques have rendered the Founders' "theories" on human nature irrelevant. I was merely demonstrating the true extent of these devestating techniques. Most assuredly, the Founders could not contend with the likes of the Progressive Lady or the Geico Lizard.
 
I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm well aware that it contains ambiguities, which is why I think we ought to take into account the Founders' views when interpreting said ambiguities.

People argue over the freedom of speech and what constitutes speech, eg flag burning.
 
Last edited:
Just addressing the argument put forth by Mega. Apparently, modern advertising techniques have rendered the Founders' "theories" on human nature irrelevant. I was merely demonstrating the true extent of these devestating techniques. Most assuredly, the Founders could not contend with the likes of the Progressive Lady or the Geico Lizard.

Ah, I missed that.
 
Edited because I decided I'd rather wait until I can reply to everything at once.

My wife is on my ass to do the dishes. Cheers.
 
Lol, typical hyper-partisan response. "Any opinion I disagree with is inherently inferior"

More overly partisan BS.

I really don't care what your opinion of me is to be quite honest. I just know that resorting to personal attacks and name-calling is a favorite tactic of lots of people (apparently including you) when they have nothing else to say.

Dodges and misrepresentations. If that's all you got, then you got nothing at all.

Unfortunately, I've got to stop there. My wife is on my ass to do the dishes. Cheers.

Cheers!

Don't forget to smile while you're scrubbing... : D
 
I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.

What are your opinions on the Founders' ideas and what we should be doing with them (if anything at all)?

The ideas are pretty much timeless.
They are a good basic set of rules without need of revision.

Anyone who thinks man has changed so much over that time, is mostly impatient about how they want man to change.

The truth is we are more or less the same as we were 1000 years ago, technology has changed, some ideas have changed but nothing enough to warrant a complete revision of the basic set of rules they created.
 
I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm well aware that it contains ambiguities, which is why I think we ought to take into account the Founders' views when interpreting said ambiguities.

However, there ARE parts of the Constitution that are completely unambiguous, but that doesn't stop people from distorting the plain meaning of words.



I agree. Not sure what that has to do with me, though.



So long as you accept the fact that your interpretation will be inherently inferior to the one informed by the actual writers of the legal document in question.

I also find it sad that you consider the opinion of such brilliant and principled individuals "irrelevant". Typical liberal hubris.



How ironic. You're using the alleged intentions of the Founders to justify your position. I thought they were irrelevant?



If you don't like being called an ingrate then cease acting like one.



You're saying the Founders' opinions are irrelevant. The obvious implication of this is to throw said time period into the trash. That's the logical conclusion of your position; sorry if you don't like having your own position thrown back in your face.



I never said I wanted to give their opinions MORE weight. I just think that they should be given SOME weight, as opposed to none at all, which is what you're suggesting.

It helps if you actually remember what was said and by whom.



There's this thing - dunno if you've heard of it - called "the Amendment process". It's a mechanism for change and adaption that was put in the Constitution so as to allow future generations latitude in the governance of their nation. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it.

After thinking it over some, I've come to the conclusion that you're partially right. I guess I don't really think the founders' opinions are completely irrelevant. I just think they're a lot LESS relevant than people who are alive.
 
Some examples of ambiguity.

Article I section 8, the infamous "general welfare" clause. ...
Let's start with this one.

Madison expected you to say that and disputes your assertion in Federalist 41:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. "
 
No, but if there were some ambiguity in the contract, then it would be up to a judge today to rule on it, the opinion of the man who drafted the contract would be irrelevant, just as the opinions of the founding fathers on how the documents they wrote should be interpreted are irrelevant.

I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, I'm saying that when it comes to interpreting it, the opinions of people alive today matter and the opinions of people who died 200 years ago don't.

LOL Why would it be irrelevant?
 
Let's start with this one.

Madison expected you to say that and disputes your assertion in Federalist 41:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. "

Who was the other author of the federalist papers and what were his views on the general welfare clause?
 
The Founders are irrelevant! They failed to foresee the advertising leviathan that has emerged and displaced their noble thoughts and profound commentaries. All tremble before the mighty Flo! Destroyer of the Founders and oppressor of humanity!

YouTube- Progressive Insurance Commercial - Flo Craves Tacos in "Back Up"

Egad, how will we ever contend with such a mighty force as thee!?

Well, I applaud your ability to be a superman who is not influenced by these things. You are truly a giant among us mere mortals.

Really though, I guess until you come back down to reality, there is no point in debating.
 
Last edited:
Why do the ideas of the founding fathers matter more than the ideas of Americans today? The founding fathers weren't gods. They were human beings. We are no less human than they were, and our ideas of what our country should be matter as much or more than theirs did.

I don't really understand why some Americans tend to believe that the founding fathers' views mattered more than someone like Abraham Lincoln or FDR or John F. Kennedy.
 
Why do the ideas of the founding fathers matter more than the ideas of Americans today? The founding fathers weren't gods. They were human beings. We are no less human than they were, and our ideas of what our country should be matter as much or more than theirs did.

I don't really understand why some Americans tend to believe that the founding fathers' views mattered more than someone like Abraham Lincoln or FDR or John F. Kennedy.

Or every single effing person in this country. After all, it collectively belongs to everyone who is currently alive and is a citizen.
 
Last edited:
Who was the other author of the federalist papers and what were his views on the general welfare clause?
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:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
 
Why do the ideas of the founding fathers matter more than the ideas of Americans today? The founding fathers weren't gods. They were human beings. We are no less human than they were, and our ideas of what our country should be matter as much or more than theirs did.

I don't really understand why some Americans tend to believe that the founding fathers' views mattered more than someone like Abraham Lincoln or FDR or John F. Kennedy.

Because every president, soldier, sailor and airman who has served this country has sworn an obligation to protect it.
 
Because every president, soldier, sailor and airman who has served this country has sworn an obligation to protect it.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom