View Poll Results: Is founding fatherism a religion?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    34 61.82%
  • Yes

    13 23.64%
  • What you say?!

    8 14.55%
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 168

Thread: Is founding fatherism a religion?

  1. #131
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    Maybe you should think about it a little more before making a general statement such as you did. You implied that whatever the majority wanted is how it should be.

    ricksfolly compares normal employment to slavery so, appearently, some folks in the USA do not consider slavery such a bad thing.

    I find the idea of mob rule to be abhorrent.

    .
    Or maybe you shouldn't minigodwin yourself and discuss things honestly and with good faith.

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Yes, there were things on which some of them disagreed strongly. Despite this, they managed to reach a compromise on most issues, a consensus of sorts, in writing the Constitution.

    There are some issues on which there was much disagreement, but most of those that ended up in the Constitution involved some level of consensus, or at least majority.

    If I propose that a certain portion of the Constitution or BoR means "X" because this is what ten Founders had to say about what they meant by it.... then instead of telling me that the Founders don't count because they disagreed with one another, refute me by demonstrating that the FF's were not in consensus on the matter. Find a similar number of FF's that disagreed with my position and you will have negated my argument. Simply telling me that the FF's disagreed with each other on many things does not prove that they didn't agree on a specific point.

    When it comes to Constitutional interpretation, what the large majority of FF's say they intended by it IS what it was ORIGINALLY intended to mean. If you don't like that or don't think it applies to modern life anymore, there's this process called AMENDMENT.

    Pardon my emphasis. I am passionate on this subject, because I believe it is a respect for the strict letter of the Constitution that keeps us from the horror that is unlimited government... as it was intended to.
    Well there's the issue I think of how you define a "Founding Father" people like Patrick Henry for example had a big role to play, but never actually signed or attended the signed of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitutional Convention. There's also far more to the founding of this country than those two documents, there's also the Articles of Confederation, along with the paper of the First Continental Congress, and the actions and resolutions of each state government. While its certainly easy to say some did more than others, or more accurately that their actions had more lasting effect, its hard to define a line as to who is and isn't a Founding Father. You also have other things like "Marbury v. Madison" which arguably were just as important, and had just as big of an impact, as the decisions made during and right after the Revolutionary War, should we consider those men Founding Fathers?

    One quality I think most of the Founding Fathers shared however is their ability to compromise and accept that the decisions they reached, although not perfect in their eyes, would receive their personal full support.

    However given the obvious amount of differences amongst the individuals most frequently called the Founding Fathers, and the fact that it took over 4 years after the end of the war, 13 since the official beginning of the country to write a document as a short as the Constitution should be testimony enough to the extreme difficulty of that task.

    I take the opinion that the original intent of each Founding Father, along with their opinions on what each phrase in the Constitution specifically meant, are entirely meaningless from the perspective of legally deciding what the Constitution means. If you look at the earliest Constitutional issues, again like Marbury v. Madison, the government, which included many Founding Fathers such as Jefferson who was President at that time, accepted the decision and authority of the SCOTUS to define the meaning of the Constitution, despite the fact that none of those judges were writers or signers of that document.

    The original writers who were still alive, active, in government, allowed a group of men who had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution decide what its meaning was. Thomas Jefferson was the loudest opponent of the Marbury v. Madison decision, but even though he was President he didn't attempt to use that office to overrule that decision. So I take that acceptance and following of that decision, although unhappily in some cases, to mean the Founding Fathers have given authority of interpretation to the SCOTUS. And its been that way ever sense.

    So ultimately you had a group of men who had a number of important disagreements signing a document which they couldn't even all agree on the meaning of each portion in the first place. Someone or something had to be the final authority on what the Constitution said, otherwise there would be no way the country would stay together because the delegate from Virgina told his state legislature it meant one thing and the guy from Georgia said something else. What could they do, convene a Constitutional Congress every time there was an issue? No, to impose order and rule of law upon the country only ONE institution had to have authority, and the SCOTUS was the best choice.

    You can't say "I'm going along with what the Founding Fathers said" because they have multiple opinions, the SCOTUS being one body has one opinion and therefore is the better choice to follow and be given authority to make these kind of decisions both then and now.

  3. #133
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Or maybe you shouldn't minigodwin yourself and discuss things honestly and with good faith.
    You made the satement. I smiply wondered if you really believed it.

    BTW, did you make up the minigodwin term all by yourself?

    .

  4. #134
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Well there's the issue I think of how you define a "Founding Father" people like Patrick Henry for example had a big role to play, but never actually signed or attended the signed of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitutional Convention. There's also far more to the founding of this country than those two documents, there's also the Articles of Confederation, along with the paper of the First Continental Congress, and the actions and resolutions of each state government. While its certainly easy to say some did more than others, or more accurately that their actions had more lasting effect, its hard to define a line as to who is and isn't a Founding Father. You also have other things like "Marbury v. Madison" which arguably were just as important, and had just as big of an impact, as the decisions made during and right after the Revolutionary War, should we consider those men Founding Fathers?

    One quality I think most of the Founding Fathers shared however is their ability to compromise and accept that the decisions they reached, although not perfect in their eyes, would receive their personal full support.

    However given the obvious amount of differences amongst the individuals most frequently called the Founding Fathers, and the fact that it took over 4 years after the end of the war, 13 since the official beginning of the country to write a document as a short as the Constitution should be testimony enough to the extreme difficulty of that task.

    I take the opinion that the original intent of each Founding Father, along with their opinions on what each phrase in the Constitution specifically meant, are entirely meaningless from the perspective of legally deciding what the Constitution means. If you look at the earliest Constitutional issues, again like Marbury v. Madison, the government, which included many Founding Fathers such as Jefferson who was President at that time, accepted the decision and authority of the SCOTUS to define the meaning of the Constitution, despite the fact that none of those judges were writers or signers of that document.

    The original writers who were still alive, active, in government, allowed a group of men who had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution decide what its meaning was. Thomas Jefferson was the loudest opponent of the Marbury v. Madison decision, but even though he was President he didn't attempt to use that office to overrule that decision. So I take that acceptance and following of that decision, although unhappily in some cases, to mean the Founding Fathers have given authority of interpretation to the SCOTUS. And its been that way ever sense.

    So ultimately you had a group of men who had a number of important disagreements signing a document which they couldn't even all agree on the meaning of each portion in the first place. Someone or something had to be the final authority on what the Constitution said, otherwise there would be no way the country would stay together because the delegate from Virgina told his state legislature it meant one thing and the guy from Georgia said something else. What could they do, convene a Constitutional Congress every time there was an issue? No, to impose order and rule of law upon the country only ONE institution had to have authority, and the SCOTUS was the best choice.

    You can't say "I'm going along with what the Founding Fathers said" because they have multiple opinions, the SCOTUS being one body has one opinion and therefore is the better choice to follow and be given authority to make these kind of decisions both then and now.

    Lord.

    SCOTUS at one time issued rulings supporting slavery. Later it issued rulings supporting "seperate-but-equal". SCOTUS is hardly perfect... SCOTUS is political, just not AS political as the House.

    Neither were the FF's. They compromised on the slavery issue out of necessity... that has since been put right via Amendment. Sufferage for all citizens has been put in via Amendment.

    You don't like what's in the Constitution, you Amend it. You don't reinterpret it entirely out of the original meaning.

    I'm going to have to just agree to disagree with some of you. I intend to continue using the FF's words as a guide to original intent where there are questions of "interpretation". If the FF's were so full of disagreement, then you should find it easy to refute my argument by quoting a similar # of FF's with different views.

    A Constitution that doesn't mean what it says is about as worthless as a fraudulent check. We NEED those "hard-shell limits" to keep government in its proper boundaries.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Lord.

    SCOTUS at one time issued rulings supporting slavery. Later it issued rulings supporting "seperate-but-equal". SCOTUS is hardly perfect... SCOTUS is political, just not AS political as the House.

    Neither were the FF's. They compromised on the slavery issue out of necessity... that has since been put right via Amendment. Sufferage for all citizens has been put in via Amendment.

    You don't like what's in the Constitution, you Amend it. You don't reinterpret it entirely out of the original meaning.

    I'm going to have to just agree to disagree with some of you. I intend to continue using the FF's words as a guide to original intent where there are questions of "interpretation". If the FF's were so full of disagreement, then you should find it easy to refute my argument by quoting a similar # of FF's with different views.

    A Constitution that doesn't mean what it says is about as worthless as a fraudulent check. We NEED those "hard-shell limits" to keep government in its proper boundaries.
    I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, but there's the undeniable problem of having more than one authority on an issue. I have no doubt the founding fathers agreed on many things, but there's no way you can expect them all to agree on everything. And just a little research showed they disagreed on extremely important issues for example going back to Marbury vs. Madison which gave the SCOTUS the power to define the meaning of the Constitution.

    Alexander Hamilton had this to say "If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents"
    By the way he signed the Constitution, and here's he's say he has no power or authority to decide its meaning even though he helped write the thing. And by virtue of saying he has no power or authority to decide its meaning also means its meaning is not set in stone, otherwise there would be no deciding needed. So in the case of at least this Founding Father, he disagrees with you.

    Whereas Thomas Jefferson said it "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    So who are we supposed to go with? Is there a way to jduge one Founder Father has having an opinion as better than the other? Or more important than the other? There's no way to rely just on the Founding Fathers, who have contradicting opinions, to decide the meaning of the Constitution. The only way to do it is to have ONE authority, even it if disagrees with itself every now and then, because its far more reliable and consistant and unlike the Founding Fathers, who are now dead, can makes judgment on things which the Founding Fathers never addressed.
    Last edited by Wiseone; 01-04-11 at 06:00 PM.

  6. #136
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    You made the satement. I smiply wondered if you really believed it.

    BTW, did you make up the minigodwin term all by yourself?

    .
    I made the statement within what I was assuming a context of common sense. You went way out there.

  7. #137
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Funny thing..... I happen to be in a waiting room earlier, and they had NPR on. apparently this is the topic du jour for the left....



    See I think many on the left view the USC as an obstacle, and this sort of talk they have been engaged in. kinda leads me to think I am right.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I intend to continue using the FF's words as a guide to original intent where there are questions of "interpretation". If the FF's were so full of disagreement, then you should find it easy to refute my argument by quoting a similar # of FF's with different views.
    So I showed you two Founding Fathers with totally different opinoins on who should determine the meaning of the Constitution. One of them, Alexander Hamilton, helped WRITE the thing and he thinks he should no authority to decide its meaning.

    So no response? I mean you have two cheer leaders thanking every one of your posts, you don't want to let them down?

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Fundamentally, there are two positions that can be taken.

    1. The Constitution is the law of the land as written.

    2. It isn't.

    If you take position 1, then determining what the Constitution, as written, means is a matter of reading it literally. Where there is dispute, what the people who wrote it said about it trumps modern interpretation.

    If you take position 2, you think modern re-interpretations are the thing, perhaps even if they turn the Original Intent upside down and inside out.

    The problem with position 2 is that the Constitution no longer serves as a hard-wired check on government power, and you end up with "government that can do ANYTHING, as long as 276 of the 550 people who run the country agree on it."

    I prefer to stick as closely as possible to what the Founders wrote, and where there is dispute to consider their other writings to determine what they meant. Any other course can lead to "anything goes".
    Actually from a legal perspective it doesn't matter what the people who wrote it said. All that matters is what was passed into law, and the meanings of those words at the time it was written.

    All this talk of interpreting the constitution based on what those who wrote it said outside of what was legally passed reminds me somewhat of the Euthyphro Dilemma posed by Socrates, in that the many Gods do not always agree, and in fact often vehemently disagree. If you want to determine what God holds to be pious it's made significantly more difficult when there are multiple Gods.

    Just my $0.02

  10. #140
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,895

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Funny thing..... I happen to be in a waiting room earlier, and they had NPR on. apparently this is the topic du jour for the left....



    See I think many on the left view the USC as an obstacle, and this sort of talk they have been engaged in. kinda leads me to think I am right.
    i also listen to NPR a great deal and had not heard any such thing. Do you have a link to this story or discussion?

    Again, I see many on the right confusing progressive scorn for the right trying to claim their view of the Constitution as their own with scorn for the document itself. And I think - for some - that confusion is deliberate and intentional and a blatant attempt to attack progressives.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •