• 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?

  • We should build upon them, but not completely transform them.

    Votes: 42 72.4%

  • They need to be fundamentally transformed.

    Votes: 4 6.9%

  • They're dead. Who cares what they thought?

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Other (please elaborate)

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Total voters
    58
Catz Part Deux said:
You mean the constitution could be AMENDED? (i.e. changed)

SHOCKING!
Click to expand...

To you perhaps, but as I said from the outset of my entry into this conversation:

Southern Man said:
... it is incorrect to view the Constitution as a "living document". Its not cast in stone though; if you want to change it, go through the amendment process.
Click to expand...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

So their intent does matter, as HG was saying?
 
the founing Fathers where BRITS THATS HOW U SPEAK ENGLISH.

Jefferson god bless him.

thats y i love u guys.USA for Ever.


mikeey
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because it didn't need to be. Amending the Constitution is, for the most part, unnecessary. Most everything that we need, even as a modern society is there. All that needs to occur is for what is written to be interpreted and applied to current situations. Pretty easy to do, and it has been done for more than two centuries. If this wasn't the case, we would have to throw out and rewrite the Constitution every 50 years or so. Why, when this amazing document is fully adequate. This is also why, as Hamilton said, the language was kept general and not specific. So it WOULD apply to future generations.
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I would say that you're missing the point.

YOU consider it a usurping of the Constitution because you disagree with the interpretation. However, this change came about through absolutely legal and Constitutional means -- through Supreme Court decisions made by justices who were appointed through a very specific format according to the very Constitution.

Just because you personally disagree with it doesn't make it invalid. There are many decisions the court has made that I disagree with too, but I don't claim that therefore our government has been usurped.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Because it didn't need to be. Amending the Constitution is, for the most part, unnecessary. Most everything that we need, even as a modern society is there. All that needs to occur is for what is written to be interpreted and applied to current situations. Pretty easy to do, and it has been done for more than two centuries. If this wasn't the case, we would have to throw out and rewrite the Constitution every 50 years or so. Why, when this amazing document is fully adequate. This is also why, as Hamilton said, the language was kept general and not specific. So it WOULD apply to future generations.
Click to expand...

Groucho said:
No, I would say that you're missing the point.

YOU consider it a usurping of the Constitution because you disagree with the interpretation. However, this change came about through absolutely legal and Constitutional means -- through Supreme Court decisions made by justices who were appointed through a very specific format according to the very Constitution.

Just because you personally disagree with it doesn't make it invalid. There are many decisions the court has made that I disagree with too, but I don't claim that therefore our government has been usurped.
Click to expand...

You are both missing the point, and/or not following the flow of the conversation.

SM just pointed out that the way the Constitution is interpreted now is not the way Madison and Hamilton had intended it to be interpreted. Groucho responded by saying:
"How can it be usurpation if we, the people, using the process provided by the Constitution, have changed it?"

And yet, as neither of you dispute, it hasn't been changed in such a way. Thus both comments that followed either didn't realize what they were defending, or were defending a post you already knew to be incorrect by ignoring the point. And in Groucho's case, putting words in my mouth (I never said anything was an "usurpation", that was SM).

All that having been said- CC is right, the founders intended the Constitution to be interpretable to apply to new circumstances. But if the issue SM was talking about had already been noted by Hamilton and Madison, then there is nothing new about it, and to ignore their view is to ignore the intent of the founders. You might as well "interpret" the First Amendment to say that nobody has any freedom of speech, and because it's an "interpretation" the intent of the founders doesn't matter.
 
1069 said:
That might've been me, except that I said they were misogynistic slave-owners (ie, products of their time) so who cares what they thought.
Which was a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know who cares: lots of people.
But I don't.
The constitution is of no more interest or relevance to me than the bible.
Ancient documents written by savages, who wouldn't have considered me- or the black family next door- human, or deserving of the same rights they so generously afforded themselves.
Click to expand...

well that suggest you can call a better alternative of people.
 
Groucho said:
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.
Click to expand...

And Jefferson wrote no part of the Constitution at all. Whereas Madison and Hamilton had a huge role in writing it.
Thus, using common legal standards as well as simple logic, Madison and Hamilton's words matter immensely when interpreting the Constitution, whereas Jefferson's words hardly matter at all.
 
Mellie said:
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)?
Click to expand...

I put that we should build upon them - but, that is, of course, open to much interpretation.

It's not like the Founding Fathers had the internet, a concept of a "gay identity", women owning property, blacks owning property...

I think the point is that - as Founding Fathers - they merely laid a foundation. It's up to us to make sure that as we keep building, we don't strain the foundation.

That said, what some people consider a strain (or transformation) others believe to be a continuation of their ideals.
 
Let me show you how you missed the point, Dav:



Dav said:
SM just pointed out that the way the Constitution is interpreted now is not the way Madison and Hamilton had intended it to be interpreted. Groucho responded by saying:

All that having been said- CC is right, the founders intended the Constitution to be interpretable to apply to new circumstances.
Click to expand...

These two statements are NOT contradictory, though you are posting as if they are. These two statement are actually COMPLIMENTARY. I am arguing that the way that the Constitution is being interpreted may not be the way that Madison and Hamilton intended, but that is irrelevant since the founders (which include Madison and Hamilton) intended the Constitution to be interpretable to apply to new circumstances. See how both live well in conjunction?
 
Dav said:
And Jefferson wrote no part of the Constitution at all. Whereas Madison and Hamilton had a huge role in writing it.
Thus, using common legal standards as well as simple logic, Madison and Hamilton's words matter immensely when interpreting the Constitution, whereas Jefferson's words hardly matter at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I will bookmark this post.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
These two statements are NOT contradictory, though you are posting as if they are. These two statement are actually COMPLIMENTARY. I am arguing that the way that the Constitution is being interpreted may not be the way that Madison and Hamilton intended, but that is irrelevant since the founders (which include Madison and Hamilton) intended the Constitution to be interpretable to apply to new circumstances. See how both live well in conjunction?
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're talking about. Airplanes are a new circumstance; hence, the constitutionality of the air force. The Constitutional limit on Federal spending is not a new circumstance. It is a timeless circumstance, and Hamilton and Madison both wrote about it, and thus both of their views on it are vital to how it's interpreted. The confusing thing is that below, you seem to agree with this.


CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree. And I will bookmark this post.
Click to expand...

You can bookmark posts?
 
Dav said:
Not really sure what you're talking about. Airplanes are a new circumstance; hence, the constitutionality of the air force. The Constitutional limit on Federal spending is not a new circumstance. It is a timeless circumstance, and Hamilton and Madison both wrote about it, and thus both of their views on it are vital to how it's interpreted. The confusing thing is that below, you seem to agree with this.
Click to expand...

I agree that their interpretation is important, but I also agree that they understood the importance of re-interpretation based on societal changes. What you seem to be saying is that their interpretation TRUMPS others, while at the same time asserting that they understood the need for re-interpretation. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself?

You can bookmark posts?
Click to expand...

With Firefox. I bookmark lots of posts for "future reference". ;)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree that their interpretation is important, but I also agree that they understood the importance of re-interpretation based on societal changes. What you seem to be saying is that their interpretation TRUMPS others, while at the same time asserting that they understood the need for re-interpretation. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself?
Click to expand...

It's not a contradiction. Yes, their interpretation trumps all others. But for new circumstances like the one I mentioned, they had no interpretation (that's why it's a new circumstance), and thus a new one must be formed. Basically, if the intent is unclear or unstated, such as when an issue is new, then interpretation is up for grabs. Otherwise, original intent trumps all.
 
Dav said:
It's not a contradiction. Yes, their interpretation trumps all others. But for new circumstances like the one I mentioned, they had no interpretation (that's why it's a new circumstance), and thus a new one must be formed. Basically, if the intent is unclear or unstated, such as when an issue is new, then interpretation is up for grabs. Otherwise, original intent trumps all.
Click to expand...

OK. Of course one must interpret when an issue is new. ;)
 
1984 said:
People don't realize that "new" philosophies and ideologies don't really exist anymore. Somebody has already thought of it, and probably put it into better words.
Click to expand...

What do you mean they don't really exist anymore?

FUNDAMENTALLY, humans haven't changed one bit. We're still a bunch of fickle, self-centered animals who will only refrain from butchering one another if there's enough resources to go around, although that is no guarantee...
Click to expand...


Really? You don't think that being able to travel anywhere on the planet doesn't change human nature?

You don't think being able to exterminate an entire city with the click of a button has changed human nature?

You don't think the ability for a superpower to effectively eliminate every human being on this planet thru nuclear warfare has changed human nature?

You don't think the fact that I ate a more diverse diet this past month and most months of the year, than my grandparent's parents had in their entire life has changed human nature?

Humans are creatures of adaptation. Human nature is determined by humans environment more than by human genetics.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never flown in a plane nor have I fought in a war.
I guess I'm a pathetic loser. :roll:

Unchanging stasis. :doh
The ignorance of that comment.

The made a very basic set of rules, that ultimately came down to, the government can't lord over you.

Do you really want to change that?

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The were more important because they did something none of you will ever be able to do, that had practically never been done before.

They had power and they didn't keep it.
They made the choice to let us have power over ourselves.
That is more significant than computers, airplanes etc.

If you ask me, it's been an complete waste.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The were more important because they did something none of you will ever be able to do, that had practically never been done before.

They had power and they didn't keep it.
They made the choice to let us have power over ourselves.
That is more significant than computers, airplanes etc.

If you ask me, it's been an complete waste.
Click to expand...

This was a combination of who they were and when they lived. They had original thoughts, they had the ability to put them into action, and they lived in a time when this could happen. Does that make them more important? As I said, for the time in which they lived and their ability to carry these ideas to fruition, yes, but only with those qualifiers.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This was a combination of who they were and when they lived. They had original thoughts, they had the ability to put them into action, and they lived in a time when this could happen. Does that make them more important? As I said, for the time in which they lived and their ability to carry these ideas to fruition, yes, but only with those qualifiers.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what time they lived in, it matters that they did it.

They made a choice to give up power.
Something that is incredibly rare and people have the nerve to call that outdated.

Posh, complete nonsense.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It doesn't matter what time they lived in, it matters that they did it.

They made a choice to give up power.
Something that is incredibly rare and people have the nerve to call that outdated.

Posh, complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

No one that I can see is saying that their choice was rare. I don't think that it is as rare as you think, but because of the time they lived in, they had far more of a choice than folks who came after. They set up a government. It is far easier to have that kind of choice in those circumstances and to act on that choice, then in a situation when the government already exists. So yes, it does matter what time in which they lived.
 
I believe in holding the Constitution as the next-thing-to-sacred, because our society needs some kind of anchor to keep us from blowing away with the next strong wind (the next "trendy idea" in government).

No, the Founders were not gods. They were, however, far deeper thinkers with a better understanding of fundamental human nature (the part that changes little over time) than I see in probably ANY modern thinkers.

Too many modern "thinkers" base political philosophies on "woulda coulda shoulda". They begin with "if men were angels", and in the middle there's a part that says "and then a miracle happens!", and they conclude with "once we've perfected human society."

Uhg. No thanks. God defend us from well-meaning idiots who think they can perfect human society! (ie eradicate poverty and inequality, or get all people to act rationally and ethically.)

The Founders knew better. They knew that to have Liberty, you had to accept that Order was going to be less than ideal; that inequalities would happen because people aren't all able to achieve at the same level; that people will not always act rationally and for the greater good.

They built a government able to withstand fools and tyrants, as long as the Constitution stood as the law of the land, and the people were vigilant that it be obeyed.

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No one that I can see is saying that their choice was rare. I don't think that it is as rare as you think, but because of the time they lived in, they had far more of a choice than folks who came after. They set up a government. It is far easier to have that kind of choice in those circumstances and to act on that choice, then in a situation when the government already exists. So yes, it does matter what time in which they lived.
Click to expand...

The chances of a rebellion succeeding are small, just about anywhere, anytime.
They put all their chips in the idea of self governance.

Now people are saying that we should just give it up because ?????
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The chances of a rebellion succeeding are small, just about anywhere, anytime.
They put all their chips in the idea of self governance.

Now people are saying that we should just give it up because ?????
Click to expand...

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?
 
Southern Man said:
From this report:


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

Well, I am sure it has happened that congress has acted in a way that was not in the spirit of the constitution. However, I would contend that most of what the US federal government does is still in the spirit of the Hamiltonian view of the constitution, that its actions must be in the general interest of the entire nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom