• 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
But my point is that they created the Constitution and the ability to take it where WE wanted to take it. That was their intent. I do not mean their intent on details, only structure.

It's interesting. This comment echoes what I've been saying. The Constitution's biggest value is it's usability across generations. It provides a structure in which to do that. I don't think the Amendment process is too difficult at all, simply because most issues that come up, their answers can be easily extrapolated from the Constitution itself. I like the second part of your first sentence a lot: "the ability to take it where WE wanted to take it."
 
The fact is that they were in a position to build a Government system different than any in history.

And at the end of the day the women were still without a vote, and the blacks were still in shackles.

I've never had the opportunity to make my own form of government.

This is exactly my point. Even the French's Revolution avoided the issue of female equality and colonial slavery. Their Declaration of the Rights of Man refrained from addressing it. I think we can all agree that these basic documents left for future interpretations in order to define the basic ideals. But given that both sides of the ocean were similar in what "equality" meant, let's not pretend that what we do today equates to what they intended.
 
I don't look to poison the well. I just don't give 18th century men credit for what they had no vision for. How many of them would vote for Barrack Obama in their era (or this one?) How many of them would send American troops across the ocean to deal with Europan affairs? Their intentions have been re-interpreted and re-interpreted. Sooner or later, gay marriage will be what they intended too.

To your first question, I wouldn't vote for Barack but of course that isn't based on race.
They probably wouldn't because of racial reasons.
As we know now, Black people are humans like white people.
They were definitely wrong in their interpretation of what constitutes "men."

I wouldn't agree to help Europe for the most part either though.
With an exception to WW2, but that is most for defensive purposes.

Marriage isn't a Federal issue and shouldn't be.
It's a trite little thing, solely intended to polarize people to their respective parties.


Except blacks who were provided much of the income for the nation and even Europeans.

Addressed this above.


You brought up their 18th century status. Would it really have been their intent or not?

It doesn't matter, marriage isn't and wasn't a federal issue.

Now to keep things in perspective.

The ideas of the enlightenment boiled down to limited state governance with maximum self governance.
No one as of yet has proven why these things are wrong.

We fixed the gender and racial issues already, they are nothing but a irrelevant distraction to the discussion now.
 
The fact is that they were in a position to build a Government system different than any in history.

And at the end of the day the women were still without a vote, and the blacks were still in shackles

Yep you're absolutely right.
They weren't the holiest of holy.
They were fallible just like you and I.

That still does not take away from the basic idea of, limited state governance with maximum self governance.
Now applied equally to all people of all races and genders.

I've never had the opportunity to make my own form of government.

I would live in abject fear of what moronic ideas that would come from a new form of government.
(not saying you're moronic)

The ideas of what people now consider a right is completely illogical and unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Oh, but we are talking about founding fathers. Not a black and white document that gets ammended generation to generation.

Amend away, brother, but that's not what Congress has been doing since FDR. The Amendment process is onerous and takes a super majority of States. What Congress has been doing is getting a 50 + 1 majority, and the SCOTUS has been letting them get away with it. And because of FDR, who packed the court with progressives.
 
Wrong. There are two possibilities. Either it was the intent of the founders for the Constitution to be used for perpetuity, which means that interpretation would be necessary based on societal and technological changes, or it was their intent that the Constitution would be thrown out and rewritten after a time, when it was obvious that because of societal and technological changes, many parts of it no longer applied. I believe the former. If you believe neither, you are diminishing the intelligence of the founders, by claiming that they were so short sighted that they would have actually believe that what was written could literally apply to life 200 years later. I think they were a whole lot smarter than that.

You neglect the third option: the Amendment process. See my response to MSgt.
 
It's interesting. This comment echoes what I've been saying. The Constitution's biggest value is it's usability across generations. It provides a structure in which to do that. I don't think the Amendment process is too difficult at all, simply because most issues that come up, their answers can be easily extrapolated from the Constitution itself. I like the second part of your first sentence a lot: "the ability to take it where WE wanted to take it."

I just want to point out the changes we have made to the Constitution since it was ratified.

Of course, we have the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Leaving 17 Amendments.
Of those...

13th Amendment freed the slaves.
15th Amendment gives suffrage to the slaves.
16th Amendment allows for a Federal Income Tax
18th Amendment Prohibition of alcohol
19th Amendment Womens suffrage
21st Amendment overturns Prohibition
24th Amendment abolishes poll taxes preventing voting
26th Amendment 18 is voting age

13th, 15th and 19th frees the slaves, expands the vote to all races and both genders. That is pretty potent stuff these amendments.

Yet, most of the Constitution has remained unmodified. So the FF intent as it applies to those parts of the constitution unchanged is relevant.
 
I just want to point out the changes we have made to the Constitution since it was ratified.

Of course, we have the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Leaving 17 Amendments.
Of those...

13th Amendment freed the slaves.
15th Amendment gives suffrage to the slaves.
16th Amendment allows for a Federal Income Tax
18th Amendment Prohibition of alcohol
19th Amendment Womens suffrage
21st Amendment overturns Prohibition
24th Amendment abolishes poll taxes preventing voting
26th Amendment 18 is voting age

13th, 15th and 19th frees the slaves, expands the vote to all races and both genders. That is pretty potent stuff these amendments.

Yet, most of the Constitution has remained unmodified. So the FF intent as it applies to those parts of the constitution unchanged is relevant.

I think this is the most pertinent part.
We should be under a rule of strictly interpreted law.

Not the rule of man whose wants and whims change with the wind.

The Constitution has been a great source of the rule of law for a long time.
It can be changed as needed through the amendment process.

No living interpretations needed.
 
Amend away, brother, but that's not what Congress has been doing since FDR. The Amendment process is onerous and takes a super majority of States. What Congress has been doing is getting a 50 + 1 majority, and the SCOTUS has been letting them get away with it. And because of FDR, who packed the court with progressives.

And the republicans packed it with six Catholics. That scares me.
 
You neglect the third option: the Amendment process. See my response to MSgt.

No I didn't. That's a given. However, there is no need to amend the Constitution, if the law is right there, already.
 
Yep you're absolutely right.
They weren't the holiest of holy.
They were fallible just like you and I.

That still does not take away from the basic idea of, limited state governance with maximum self governance.
Now applied equally to all people of all races and genders.

Limited state governance is impossible when the governed transcend national boundaries.


I would live in abject fear of what moronic ideas that would come from a new form of government.
(not saying you're moronic)

The ideas of what people now consider a right is completely illogical and unreasonable.

So in a world where the literacy rate dwarves the 18th century. In a world where we understand more about our world and about how we function as humans, than any time previously. In a world where the large majority of people understand that tough there may be differences of race, religion, language, and gender we shouldn't discriminate accordingly.

You find fear the government this world would bring. You believe that the world of racism, sexism, large ignorance and fear of the ignorant masses makes a better government?
 
I'm not advocating any amendment. What I advocate is Congress aiding by it, as written.

I didn't say you were. And I advocate using the Constitution to deal with current situations. Everything we need is right there as the founders intended, which is why the Constitution does NOT cover everything, but can be used for nearly everything.
 
Limited state governance is impossible when the governed transcend national boundaries.

What is so important that the government needs to be involved in so many things?
Things that have been dealt with privately for a long time.

I think you, like others, are making excuses for them.

So in a world where the literacy rate dwarves the 18th century. In a world where we understand more about our world and about how we function as humans, than any time previously. In a world where the large majority of people understand that tough there may be differences of race, religion, language, and gender we shouldn't discriminate accordingly.

You give modern society way to much credit, more than I'm giving the FF's.

A majority of people think that limited resources can be rationed efficiently by government.
They aren't that much different.

Many of those things people don't believe as widely as you think.

You find fear the government this world would bring. You believe that the world of racism, sexism, large ignorance and fear of the ignorant masses makes a better government?

Yea, in it was created the basic idea that I should be able to live as I see fit without forceful interruption from outsiders.
As long as I didn't purposefully hurt anyone.

Now people think I should be forced to accept their version of right, even when facts contradict it.
They are willing to use force to make me comply.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say you were. And I advocate using the Constitution to deal with current situations. Everything we need is right there as the founders intended, which is why the Constitution does NOT cover everything, but can be used for nearly everything.
Oh really? Where's the clause for Obamacare?
 
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.

you feel the same way about the rotting and perhaps evaporated twits who foisted the New Deal, Great Society and other unconstitutional garbage on us that continues to infect the very fabric of our society today?
 
you feel the same way about the rotting and perhaps evaporated twits who foisted the New Deal, Great Society and other unconstitutional garbage on us that continues to infect the very fabric of our society today?

"Gee, Ma, why has political debate in America deteriorated so much lately?"
 
What is so important that the government needs to be involved in so many things?
Things that have been dealt with privately for a long time.

I think you, like others, are making excuses for them.

Private property did not exist until the Enlightened thinkers made it up.
"Fruits of the labor" had no meaning in the times predating Adam Smith.


You give modern society way to much credit, more than I'm giving the FF's.
Going to argue that slavery wasn't part of the Founding Father's world? And continued even when they had the ability to build a Government from scratch?

A majority of people think that limited resources can be rationed efficiently by government.
They aren't that much different.

Can't wait to see how you suppose limited resources should be rationed... and by whom



Now people think I should be forced to accept their version of right, even when facts contradict it.
They are willing to use force to make me comply.

What happened to those who voice their opinions against the Founding Fathers? Ask those from Shay's Rebelling and the Whiskey Rebellion.
 
Back
Top Bottom