Is founding fatherism a religion?

In the name of the founding father, the son and the holy spirit. Amen.

Kal'Stang said:

But at what cost in the interim?

Click to expand...

Hard to say. Every soceital configuration has a cost as no society can do everything right.

Kal'Stang said:

It is also for this very reason that we should stick to what the FF's said about the things that they passed in the Constitution. It provides a way in which reinterpretation cannot be made so that it "fits" a person/group of persons beliefs.

Click to expand...

But there is no objective way to say that any interpretation is best, including the FF's (and individually they had lots of different and often imcompatible ideas anyway, human like the rest of us)

Kal'Stang said:

As the Constitution is based on individual freedoms then no, it should not be the direction that the majority of civilization should go. Other wise you just have mob rule.

Click to expand...

What greater freedom is there than the ability to shape your destiny?

megaprogman said:

Hard to say. Every soceital configuration has a cost as no society can do everything right.



But there is no objective way to say that any interpretation is best, including the FF's (and individually they had lots of different and often imcompatible ideas anyway, human like the rest of us)

What greater freedom is there than the ability to shape your destiny?

Click to expand...

Actually I think we can easily come up with an objective measure.

The USA is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. 2 points for the Founders.
Citizens of the USA enjoy greater income and more freedom than almost any other nation on the planet. 2 more points for the FF's.
Most of the problems were are having today can be traced to actions that were taken by 20th-21st c. politicians whose Constitutionality is debateable, such as a massive Fedgov that spends $3 for every $2 it takes in.... game, set and match.

Goshin said:

Actually I think we can easily come up with an objective measure.

The USA is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. 2 points for the Founders.
Citizens of the USA enjoy greater income and more freedom than almost any other nation on the planet. 2 more points for the FF's.
Most of the problems were are having today can be traced to actions that were taken by 20th-21st c. politicians whose Constitutionality is debateable, such as a massive Fedgov that spends $3 for every $2 it takes in.... game, set and match.

Click to expand...

Except most of these things didn't happen until the late 40s and 50s or later and our budget problems didn't really start until the 80s...

Goshin said:

The USA is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. 2 points for the Founders.

Click to expand...

The problem is, the founding fathers really had nothing to do with that. The reason we're wealthy and powerful is because we were largely untouched by WWII. Most of the rest of the planet had to rebuild following the war, we didn't. Plus, we had geared our industrial base up during the war and once wartime production stopped, we turned that massive industrial might toward commercial production. We grew, but something that happened in the 1940s and 1950s can hardly be blamed on the founding fathers. Unfortunately, we also squandered that head start that we had, other nations not only caught up to us but surpassed us through the 70s and 80s. There was a time when we were the unsurpassed producer of high-tech products and places like Japan were seen as producing junk electronics. Now... they are the innovators. The same can be said of the automotive market. We had the best cars on the planet. Now, our manufacturers are going out of business or getting massive loans from the government. We don't produce the products we use today. We are not #1. We are not superior. We are no longer a producer economy, but a consumer economy. We buy from everyone else and we borrow money from everyone else.

How is that wealthy or powerful?

molten_dragon said:

It's not so much that I think it needs to be changed (though I could probably come up with things that I think should be changed). It's that I don't think we need to slavishly interpret it the same way that the founding fathers would have. We should interpret it in the way that benefits us as a country most. Here's an example.

Quite awhile ago, I got into a debate on nationalized healthcare. Whoever I was debating with (I don't remember who it was now) argued that nationalized healthcare because was unconstitutional. I brought up the general welfare clause, and their counter-argument was that the founding fathers intent was not for the general welfare clause to be used that way.

That's the kind of thing that I have issues with. I don't believe that the founding fathers' intent should trump our intent in cases like that. We should debate an issue on its own merits, and if it turns out to be beneficial to us as a country, then we should do it, regardless of whether or not the founding fathers would have approved.

Click to expand...

Of course, that is why the writers left some of the language so nebulous, so that it could be interpreted to best fit the needs of the people in the future. The General Welfare clause you brought up is an excellent example.

Goshin said:

Pardon my tardiness. As you requested....

Click to expand...

Yes thats what Thomas Jefferson said, however they are other founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton, who had more to do with writing the Constitution than Jefferson did by the way, who disagrees. So by saying you want to follow the interpretation of the Founding Fathers you have to be disagreeing with yourself, because they disagreed with themselves, or you have to pick and choose which Founding Father's opinion you want to support. In that case you clearly cannot say you are following the Founder Fathers' opinions because you're leaving some out. Its a simple fact that you cannot follow every Founding Father's opinion and Constitutional interpretation because they contradict each other.

For example, again, we have Alexander Hamilton who helped write the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson who helped write the Declaration of Independence, both Founding Fathers, and both in disagreement over who should have the authority to interpret it. You cannot have it both ways.

Wiseone said:

Yes thats what Thomas Jefferson said, however they are other founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton, who had more to do with writing the Constitution than Jefferson did by the way, who disagrees. So by saying you want to follow the interpretation of the Founding Fathers you have to be disagreeing with yourself, because they disagreed with themselves, or you have to pick and choose which Founding Father's opinion you want to support. In that case you clearly cannot say you are following the Founder Fathers' opinions because you're leaving some out. Its a simple fact that you cannot follow every Founding Father's opinion and Constitutional interpretation because they contradict each other.

For example, again, we have Alexander Hamilton who helped write the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson who helped write the Declaration of Independence, both Founding Fathers, and both in disagreement over who should have the authority to interpret it. You cannot have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Madison had more to do with writing the constitution than Hamilton did and he alligned with Jefferson.

In fact, the main differences today regarding constitutional interpretation can really be traced directly back to the disagreements between the Jefferson/Madison school of thought and the Hamilton/Adams school of thought.

Unfortunately, back then they were consistent in their views, while the modern politicalparties will pick and choose when to be Jeffersonian and when to be Hamiltonian based solely on how these interpretations will assist their own personal views on specific issues. There is a distinct lack of philosophical consistency for many.

Tucker Case said:

Unfortunately, back then they were consistent in their views, while the modern politicalparties will pick and choose when to be Jeffersonian and when to be Hamiltonian based solely on how these interpretations will assist their own personal views on specific issues. There is a distinct lack of philosophical consistency for many.

Click to expand...

I think that in certain cases it can be argued that while there is little historical consistency, if there is internal consistency for the modern thinker, they are still on better ground than they would be otherwise. There is no rule that one should build their views solely based on the thoughts of historical figures.

haymarket said:

1- I love the Constitution.

Click to expand...

not buying it.

2- Statism? So you are now a converted anarchist? The last time I looked we both valued both a society with a government and citizens with freedom. I hope you have not changed into an anarchist.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

3- Abortion????? And what did I say about that????

Click to expand...

So I',m wrong?

4- You sound like an 9th grade girl in school lunch room screaming "I love him more than you do and he's mine"

Click to expand...

[/quote]


there you go again....

megaprogman said:

I think that in certain cases it can be argued that while there is little historical consistency, if there is internal consistency for the modern thinker, they are still on better ground than they would be otherwise. There is no rule that one should build their views solely based on the thoughts of historical figures.

Click to expand...

The problem I'm talking about is that Hamilton and Jefferson had fundamentally oppositional base philosophies regarding constitutional interpretation. People today continue to espouse those same underlying philosphies as a primary basis, but they will "shift" toward the alternative philosophy when the results suit their personal preferences.

It's not that they are supposed to build their views based solely on teh thoughts of historical figures, it's that they should build their views based on some form of underlying principles, and that they should be consistent in teh applicatiopn of these principles.

The historical figures, in this case, did that.

Tucker Case said:

Madison had more to do with writing the constitution than Hamilton did and he alligned with Jefferson.

In fact, the main differences today regarding constitutional interpretation can really be traced directly back to the disagreements between the Jefferson/Madison school of thought and the Hamilton/Adams school of thought.

Unfortunately, back then they were consistent in their views, while the modern politicalparties will pick and choose when to be Jeffersonian and when to be Hamiltonian based solely on how these interpretations will assist their own personal views on specific issues. There is a distinct lack of philosophical consistency for many.

Click to expand...

Thank for you adding to my point, clearly if there are different views of thoughts among the Founding Fathers on the Constitution than following all of their opinions, as if they were all united and the same, is impossible. One would have to pick and choose which to follow or to agree upon, which would inevitably disagree with another. Or you could attempt to justify which Founding Father's opinion, when there is disagreement, is 'worth' more.

And there's also the problem of who will determine the Constitutionality of issues which the Founding Fathers never addressed, how will we interpret the Founding Father's intent on amendments behind the original 10? Or if an issue arises in the courts which is not talked about in the Constitution, how can the Founding Fathers opinions help us there?

Wiseone said:

Thank for you adding to my point, clearly if there are different views of thoughts among the Founding Fathers on the Constitution than following all of their opinions, as if they were all united and the same, is impossible. One would have to pick and choose which to follow or to agree upon, which would inevitably disagree with another. Or you could attempt to justify which Founding Father's opinion, when there is disagreement, is 'worth' more.

And there's also the problem of who will determine the Constitutionality of issues which the Founding Fathers never addressed, how will we interpret the Founding Father's intent on amendments behind the original 10? Or if an issue arises in the courts which is not talked about in the Constitution, how can the Founding Fathers opinions help us there?

Click to expand...

One can use them as part of an argument, but it can't be considered the end all-be all of an argument. One must still present their case effectively to convince others to support the aoproach one promotes.

Personally, I hold many of the same underlying principles that Jefferson and Madison did, coupled with many of the views espoused in the anti-federalist papers. It's still my job to argue in favor of others adopting those same types of views. I can use their words to bolster my positions, or provide a historical basis for them, but I can't simply claim that my views are those expressed by the "founders" and that makes me "right".

Tucker Case said:

The problem I'm talking about is that Hamilton and Jefferson had fundamentally oppositional base philosophies regarding constitutional interpretation. People today continue to espouse those same underlying philosphies as a primary basis, but they will "shift" toward the alternative philosophy when the results suit their personal preferences.

It's not that they are supposed to build their views based solely on teh thoughts of historical figures, it's that they should build their views based on some form of underlying principles, and that they should be consistent in teh applicatiopn of these principles.

The historical figures, in this case, did that.

Click to expand...

I largely agree with the caveat that since I don't really consider the FF's an authoritative source, I am free to pick and choose as I see fit

megaprogman said:

I largely agree with the caveat that since I don't really consider the FF's an authoritative source, I am free to pick and choose as I see fit

Click to expand...

To me, there should be no distinctions based on how you perceive teh FF's. To me, being consistent with your foundational philosphical principles is, in many ways, more important than the actual principles.

If one believes in loose interpretations of teh constitutional clauses (as Hamilton did), they should be willing to entertain loose interpretations that do not fit with their own personal views on the issues.

If one believes in a strict interpretation (like Madison and Jefferson did), then one should be strict in their interpretations regardless of whether or not it fits with their personal views on the issues.

Picking and choosing when to be loose with your interpretations and when to be strict is, IMO, an intellectually dishonest approach to constituional law. This is what both major political parties do right now, though.

However, if someone uses some other underlying philosophy as their guiding force for their interpretations, and has an understanding of those principles, then they have some sort of intelelctual footing to base their argumetns on. One doesn't need to see the FF's as authoritative, oone only needs to be consistent in their own approach.

Tucker Case said:

To me, there should be no distinctions based on how you perceive teh FF's. To me, being consistent with your foundational philosphical principles is, in many ways, more important than the actual principles.

If one believes in loose interpretations of teh constitutional clauses (as Hamilton did), they should be willing to entertain loose interpretations that do not fit with their own personal views on the issues.

If one believes in a strict interpretation (like Madison and Jefferson did), then one should be strict in their interpretations regardless of whether or not it fits with their personal views on the issues.

Picking and choosing when to be loose with your interpretations and when to be strict is, IMO, an intellectually dishonest approach to constituional law. This is what both major political parties do right now, though.

However, if someone uses some other underlying philosophy as their guiding force for their interpretations, and has an understanding of those principles, then they have some sort of intelelctual footing to base their argumetns on. One doesn't need to see the FF's as authoritative, oone only needs to be consistent in their own approach.

Click to expand...

Ahh I misunderstood you I think. I was thinking more about my stance on specific issues, not necessarily constitutional interpretation. But yeah, I essentially agree.

megaprogman said:

Ahh I misunderstood you I think. I was thinking more about my stance on specific issues, not necessarily constitutional interpretation. But yeah, I essentially agree.

Click to expand...

Ah, I thought your response was kind of strange. :lol:

My point is that the way that Hamilton or Jefferson viewed the issues were consistent with their philosophical foundations. Hamilton, who wished for more federal authority, favored loose interpretations to increase that federal authority.

Jefferson, who wanted restricted federal authority, sought stricter interpretations as a limitation of that authority.

Generally, I'd say the Hamiltonian way of thinking won out.

So when people discuss the founding fathers and how they would view the US today, one could say that Hamilton would be very pleased with most of it, while Jefferson and Madison would probably vomit.