• 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!

Is founding fatherism a religion?

Is founding fatherism a religion?

  • Total voters
    35
Manc Skipper said:
Does the constitution get amended with the opinions of the people yesterday?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it has to be amended. It can't just be wadded up and thrown in the garbage.

The Founders knew that, sooner, or later, some clowns would come along and totally twist the meaning of the document. So, they put safegaurds in place.
 
jamesrage said:
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that our founding forefathers wrote our constitution and many of our laws and many people on both sides of the political isle like to argue what is the intent or what is the meaning of a right. So unless the constitution has been amended the opinion of those who wrote it do trump the opinions of people today.
Click to expand...

I would agree with the idea that the founding fathers' opinions trump anyone else's when it comes to questions on the original intent of the constitution. After all, they wrote it, and they would know better than anyone what their original intent was. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm saying, is that when the question is how should we interpret and apply the constitution to the world we live in today, the opinions of the founding fathers count for less. Their opinions on it are not without merit even in such a discussion, since they were intelligent men, and the original intent of the document gives us a jumping off point, but this is mitigated by the fact that when they wrote those opinions, the country was a VERY different place. Societal values were different, the physical makeup of our country was different, and the difficulty of communication made for a very different political and social landscape in America.

Change just for the sake of change is bad, but so is tradition just for the sake of tradition. Just because the founding fathers interpreted the constitution in a certain way is not a good reason for us to do the same. If we are to follow their interpretation, it should be because that manner of interpretation is what is best for us in the world we live in today.
 
molten_dragon said:
I would agree with the idea that the founding fathers' opinions trump anyone else's when it comes to questions on the original intent of the constitution. After all, they wrote it, and they would know better than anyone what their original intent was. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm saying, is that when the question is how should we interpret and apply the constitution to the world we live in today, the opinions of the founding fathers count for less. Their opinions on it are not without merit even in such a discussion, since they were intelligent men, and the original intent of the document gives us a jumping off point, but this is mitigated by the fact that when they wrote those opinions, the country was a VERY different place. Societal values were different, the physical makeup of our country was different, and the difficulty of communication made for a very different political and social landscape in America.

Change just for the sake of change is bad, but so is tradition just for the sake of tradition. Just because the founding fathers interpreted the constitution in a certain way is not a good reason for us to do the same. If we are to follow their interpretation, it should be because that manner of interpretation is what is best for us in the world we live in today.
Click to expand...

What about the Constitution would you want to change?

The Bill of Rights isn't so complex that societal changes effect what they mean.
 
apdst said:
What about the Constitution would you want to change?

The Bill of Rights isn't so complex that societal changes effect what they mean.
Click to expand...

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.
 
megaprogman said:
In a debate today, someone tried to settle a point by referencing what one of the founding fathers thought about it instead of arguing the point on its own merits.

Is there some sort of religion out there that I am not aware of that considers these guys the end all and be all of argumentation as opposed to a person using their own reasoning?
Click to expand...

No, it's just that the founders were 1000 times smarter than you.
 
molten_dragon said:
Some people (mostly conservatives) feel that the founding fathers' opinions on government should trump those of people alive today. I'm inclined to disagree. While I think their opinions should be respected, I believe that they should be given less weight than the people alive today who actually have to live under our government.
Click to expand...

Well no kidding, you like to run the constitution through a paper shredder, because you know it all better. :roll:
 
American said:
Well no kidding, you like to run the constitution through a paper shredder, because you know it all better. :roll:
Click to expand...

??? What the hell are you even talking about? I like to run the constitution through a paper shredder? Because I know it better? Better than who?

I'm guessing from your scattered and confusing post, that you think I'm saying I want to just get rid of the constitution because I think I'm more familiar with it than the founding fathers are? I've never claimed that. I'm not a constitutional scholar. However, I fulfill 2 important criteria that the founding fathers do not. 1: I'm alive and capable of making decisions based on the world as it is today, they are not. 2: I have to live under the government that is based on the constitution and the way it is interpreted, they do not. By all means, we should rely on the founding fathers to determine the original intent and interpretation of the constitution. We just shouldn't let that original intent stop us from interpreting it differently today if doing so is beneficial.
 
jamesrage said:
Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. I do not know. However this is not the same as blatantly ignoring an amendment or blatantly misinterpreting the constitution to create rights that do not exist or to take away rights without first amending the constitution.
Click to expand...

It is a good thing we have a court system then who has the legal responsibility to handle such matters.
 
molten_dragon said:
??? What the hell are you even talking about? I like to run the constitution through a paper shredder? Because I know it better? Better than who?

I'm guessing from your scattered and confusing post, that you think I'm saying I want to just get rid of the constitution because I think I'm more familiar with it than the founding fathers are? I've never claimed that. I'm not a constitutional scholar. However, I fulfill 2 important criteria that the founding fathers do not. 1: I'm alive and capable of making decisions based on the world as it is today, they are not. 2: I have to live under the government that is based on the constitution and the way it is interpreted, they do not. By all means, we should rely on the founding fathers to determine the original intent and interpretation of the constitution. We just shouldn't let that original intent stop us from interpreting it differently today if doing so is beneficial.
Click to expand...

Do you think that it is ok to rewrite history?
 
The founding fathers believed all sorts of different things and were very smart men, but they had flaws. And we have had to change the Constitution (via Amendments) to specifically change certain things that were set up via the Constitution or ensure that they were applied to every citizen in every state (voting rights, equal protection, full faith and credit, etc.), but that doesn't mean that everything that wasn't considered a right back then should also be denied to people now. Times have changed and that is specifically why the 9th Amendment is in the Constitution anyway. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that they could not anticipate every right that would have to be protected. And, some of them, probably even figured that times would change to include things that they wouldn't have considered.

Many people that argue on the basis of "what the founding fathers want" don't seem to realize that those who provided much of the foundation for the Constitution also realized that times would change and the citizens should not have to change the Constitution every time the government doesn't agree with what they are doing. In fact, it should be the government's job to change the Constitution whenever it wants to prevent someone from doing something (that doesn't obviously interfere with the rights of another/other citizens).

Although I don't believe that the Prohibition Amendment was a good thing, I do agree with the process with which it was implemented. This is how the government should restrict any activity/right/privilege/whatever that doesn't obviously impact another citizen's rights. Changing the Constitution requires a lot more votes and support than simply making a law/act to restrict a person's rights (even those not enumerated specifically by the Constitution), and I believe that that is exactly what the founding fathers wanted.
 
In some ways it is, just like environmentalism is very religious in it's adherence for some. Honestly, the founding fathers were just men, they could not possibly have conceived of the modern world, therefore their views are largely irrelevant today. Anything they had to say, outside of the vaguest of concepts, doesn't mean jack squat in the modern world.

But don't tell that to the neo-conservative wingnuts.
 
roguenuke said:
The founding fathers believed all sorts of different things and were very smart men, but they had flaws. And we have had to change the Constitution (via Amendments) to specifically change certain things that were set up via the Constitution or ensure that they were applied to every citizen in every state (voting rights, equal protection, full faith and credit, etc.), but that doesn't mean that everything that wasn't considered a right back then should also be denied to people now. Times have changed and that is specifically why the 9th Amendment is in the Constitution anyway. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that they could not anticipate every right that would have to be protected. And, some of them, probably even figured that times would change to include things that they wouldn't have considered.

Many people that argue on the basis of "what the founding fathers want" don't seem to realize that those who provided much of the foundation for the Constitution also realized that times would change and the citizens should not have to change the Constitution every time the government doesn't agree with what they are doing. In fact, it should be the government's job to change the Constitution whenever it wants to prevent someone from doing something (that doesn't obviously interfere with the rights of another/other citizens).

Although I don't believe that the Prohibition Amendment was a good thing, I do agree with the process with which it was implemented. This is how the government should restrict any activity/right/privilege/whatever that doesn't obviously impact another citizen's rights. Changing the Constitution requires a lot more votes and support than simply making a law/act to restrict a person's rights (even those not enumerated specifically by the Constitution), and I believe that that is exactly what the founding fathers wanted.
Click to expand...

Just a bit of clairification here but most people reference the Founding fathers only on those items that they themselves talked about and which applied to the parts of the Constitution that they wrote. When talking about parts of the Constitution that they did not write then people often reference the people that wrote those additions instead.

I doubt very seriously that anyone thinks that the Founding fathers were perfect. But the ideas that they set into motion may have been.
 
Kal'Stang said:
By reinterpreting the Constitution beyond that of what the founding fathers prescribed you are rewriting history. So in essence, you did.
Click to expand...

No, rewriting history would be claiming that the founding fathers said or did something that completely contradicts something about them.

The founding fathers themselves put in the 9th Amendement (a catch-all) and an Amendment change process. And, they set up the SCOTUS to interpret the constitutionality of laws. If they actually believed that everyone would have just one belief about how the Constitution was meant to be used, then they would have made sure that rules governing the SCOTUS were extremely strict on how they could interpret the Constitution for cases that came to them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Just a bit of clairification here but most people reference the Founding fathers only on those items that they themselves talked about and which applied to the parts of the Constitution that they wrote. When talking about parts of the Constitution that they did not write then people often reference the people that wrote those additions instead.

I doubt very seriously that anyone thinks that the Founding fathers were perfect. But the ideas that they set into motion may have been.
Click to expand...

Ideas are great, but most can be improved on.

And their basic idea was that the people be as free as possible. We should be striving to ensure that every citizen is guaranteed fair and equal treatment to the fullest extent possible, instead of arguing about what the founding fathers thought was right and wrong and how they would be doing things. They are not here. They died a long time ago. It is quite ridiculous to believe that they (and/or only people who think like they did) are the only people capable of expounding on their good ideas.
 
roguenuke said:
No, rewriting history would be claiming that the founding fathers said or did something that completely contradicts something about them.

The founding fathers themselves put in the 9th Amendement (a catch-all) and an Amendment change process. And, they set up the SCOTUS to interpret the constitutionality of laws. If they actually believed that everyone would have just one belief about how the Constitution was meant to be used, then they would have made sure that rules governing the SCOTUS were extremely strict on how they could interpret the Constitution for cases that came to them.
Click to expand...

Rewriting history also includes ignoring parts of history in favor of something else.
 
roguenuke said:
Ideas are great, but most can be improved on.

And their basic idea was that the people be as free as possible. We should be striving to ensure that every citizen is guaranteed fair and equal treatment to the fullest extent possible, instead of arguing about what the founding fathers thought was right and wrong and how they would be doing things. They are not here. They died a long time ago. It is quite ridiculous to believe that they (and/or only people who think like they did) are the only people capable of expounding on their good ideas.
Click to expand...

If we allowed the reinterpretation of the Constitution, ignoring what the founding fathers said, then we would not have the right to bear arms and there would not be a seperation of church and state.

Adding to ideas is a good thing yes. But if an idea was great then why allow something which could change that great idea into a bad idea?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If we allowed the reinterpretation of the Constitution, ignoring what the founding fathers said, then we would not have the right to bear arms and there would not be a seperation of church and state.

Adding to ideas is a good thing yes. But if an idea was great then why allow something which could change that great idea into a bad idea?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is what many people argue for however. I personally completely agree with the two things you just stated, however, usually when I argue against someone who is bringing up the founding fathers, it is the opposite view on the separation of church and state issue. Most of those that I have discussed this with believe that since most of the fathers were all for state churches, then that particular Amendment only applies to the federal government not being allowed to restrict those things. Most of those that argue in support of following what the founding fathers believed argue for states' rights over the rights of individual citizens, at least this has been my experience.

Many of the rights that people are fighting for are already covered by an Amendment, if we just look at the Amendment in a different way, which is where the SCOTUS comes in. It should only be necessary to change the Constitution (via a new Amendment) when the change is so great that it is much too difficult to claim that it is covered (civil rights, Equal Protection/FFCC) or when it is an actual change (such as voting rights).
 
roguenuke said:
I don't believe that is what many people argue for however. I personally completely agree with the two things you just stated, however, usually when I argue against someone who is bringing up the founding fathers, it is the opposite view on the separation of church and state issue. Most of those that I have discussed this with believe that since most of the fathers were all for state churches, then that particular Amendment only applies to the federal government not being allowed to restrict those things. Most of those that argue in support of following what the founding fathers believed argue for states' rights over the rights of individual citizens, at least this has been my experience.
Click to expand...

Bolded part: You should read up on the FF, they definitely did not support state churches.

roguenuke said:
Many of the rights that people are fighting for are already covered by an Amendment, if we just look at the Amendment in a different way, which is where the SCOTUS comes in. It should only be necessary to change the Constitution (via a new Amendment) when the change is so great that it is much too difficult to claim that it is covered (civil rights, Equal Protection/FFCC) or when it is an actual change (such as voting rights).
Click to expand...

The problem here is that if you reinterpret an amendment then you run the risk of getting rid of the original intent of that amendment. Which would in effect take rights away. Or could be used to do such. Which is why I provided my above examples on gun rights and the church and state bit. And there are plenty of people trying to get the 1st amendment reinterpreted to state exactly what I suggested.

I would prefer that they make a new amendment to support any change that is needed/wanted over reinterpretations. At least with a new amendment you know where things stand.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bolded part: You should read up on the FF, they definitely did not support state churches.

The problem here is that if you reinterpret an amendment then you run the risk of getting rid of the original intent of that amendment. Which would in effect take rights away. Or could be used to do such. Which is why I provided my above examples on gun rights and the church and state bit. And there are plenty of people trying to get the 1st amendment reinterpreted to state exactly what I suggested.

I would prefer that they make a new amendment to support any change that is needed/wanted over reinterpretations. At least with a new amendment you know where things stand.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you, but I don't know how many supported or didn't support state churches, I am just going off the arguments that I get all the time when I argue the separation of church and state issue.

As for the interpretation of Amendment rights, I believe that they should only be interpreted to ensure rights (that presumably should already be included, just not actually stated). For any restriction on rights, I am completely for an Amendment to do so.

For example, a lot of people argue that same sex marriage is not a right because it is not guaranteed in the Amendments. I don't agree because the 9th Amendment clearly states that there are more rights guaranteed to the people than just those that are enumerated in the Constitution. I also believe that the Constitution was meant to protect all citizens from all governments, including state and local, not just federal.
 
Moderator's Warning:
American is banned from this thread
 
Cephus said:
In some ways it is, just like environmentalism is very religious in it's adherence for some. Honestly, the founding fathers were just men, they could not possibly have conceived of the modern world, therefore their views are largely irrelevant today. Anything they had to say, outside of the vaguest of concepts, doesn't mean jack squat in the modern world.

But don't tell that to the neo-conservative wingnuts.
Click to expand...

Why are neoconservatives somehow picked on for this? To a significant degree, it is universally accepted political discourse to bring in the Founding Fathers. A particular minority of the United States disregard their ideas entirely, while others hold them up here or there, while dismiss their usefulness there. For the most part, we are apart of a nation that accepts the founding era as philosophically nearing perfection. Also, a great deal of the political discussion places the Founding Fathers in modernity, not in some gone past-time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom