• 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
reefedjib said:
Yet they managed to craft a Constitution with Amendments that has for the most part stood the test of time. Extending the vote to blacks and women may very well have been on some of their minds as a future amendment. That's enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Who's enlightenment? Theirs or future generations? What they wrote was a base for which others created from.

reefedjib said:
The Constitution is something for us to honor.
Click to expand...

Who stated otherwise? But let's not argue that our opinions and present day behaviors are exactly what our founding fathers intended. Aside from the idea of enlightenment and their document, they went home to slaves immediately after they signed it. You tell me what their vision was. It was up to future generations to decide that a Civil War was needed to include blacks. It took future generations to decide to march for Civil Rights. Today, we are more involved with international affairs than ever. Are we really what they intended or are we products of our own decisions while using the illusion of their perfect vision for legitimacy?

They played their parts in the experiment. But it was only a part.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Applying 18th century personal moral standards to the 21st century and then using that as a base that tries to discredit the entirety, of the ideas, of the enlightenment.

Completely illogical.
Click to expand...


You don't believe that personal moral standards and political philosophy are intertwined?
 
MSgt said:
I guess "universal" health care is eacvtly what the founding fathers intended. I guess regulating industry is exactly what our founding fathers intended. I guess foriegn wars is exactly what our founding fathers intended.

Perhaps you place too much emphasis on what was intended when you should be recognizing that their's was a different era and what we do is what we intend.

Thanks for the Declaration of Independance, but it took generations later to decide what certain words meant. I doubt any of them had the vision to see what future generations would interpret as defining America's prosperity.
Click to expand...

It was an ideal, that the people of the time hoped we could live up to eventually.
Yea I'm not going to debate you on the other issues as you're mischaracterizing (whether purposefully or ignorantly) what it means in the first place.


MSgt said:
And by both sides of the argument. Leave the founding fathers alone and own your own decisions.
Click to expand...

They were the first people to codify the ideals of the enlightenment into law.
It's a pretty big deal.
 
drz-400 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you logically contend that. Again here's what Hamilton wrote:

"That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

How do welfare, public housing, affirmative action, and any "earmark" program meet Hamilton's restriction?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Applying 18th century personal moral standards to the 21st century and then using that as a base that tries to discredit the entirety, of the ideas, of the enlightenment.

Completely illogical.
Click to expand...

But attributing 21st century standards to 18th century morals of thought is? You got it backwards. Our founding fathers were a product of their era. We are a product of ours. What we do today has nothing to do with what they intended. We merely re-interpret as we go. Somehow the moral mind of the 18th century is supposed to exclude the extreme few who signed a base document.

Next you'll be applying gay marriage to what the founding fathers intended.
 
MSgt said:
Who's enlightenment? Theirs or future generations? What they wrote was a base for which others created from.
Click to expand...

Indeed. They created the base.


Who stated otherwise? But let's not argue that our opinions and present day behaviors are exactly what our founding fathers intended. Aside from the idea of enlightenment and their document, they went home to slaves immediately after they signed it. You tell me what their vision was. It was up to future generations to decide that a Civil War was needed to include blacks. It took future generations to decide to march for Civil Rights. Today, we are more involved with international affairs than ever. Are we really what they intended or are we products of our own decisions while using the illusion of their perfect vision for legitimacy?

They played their parts in the experiment. But it was only a part.
Click to expand...

Some here have claimed we shouldn't honor what they created, and what subsequent generations amended.

They deferred with a compromise on the issue of slavery and came up with each black being 3/5 of a person. Not enlightened from our perspective but from theirs the best they could do in the process of creating a union. It did take a Civil War to resolve and not all of the consequences were positive (federal government is not weak - too strong).

I would argue we are what they intended although we have taken steps they would not have liked. But we have been able to take the Constitution where it needed to go.

I am saying honor the Constitution. And give the FF due credit for creating it.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
But attributing 21st century standards to 18th century morals of thought is? You got it backwards. Our founding fathers were a product of their era. We are a product of ours. What we do today has nothing to do with what they intended. We merely re-interpret as we go. Somehow the moral mind of the 18th century is supposed to exclude the extreme few who signed a base document.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Constitution is like any other contract. Just because you think that you're hip doesn't give you the right to interpret it any way other than intended by its signers.
 
MSgt said:
But attributing 21st century standards to 18th century morals of thought is? You got it backwards. Our founding fathers were a product of their era. We are a product of ours. What we do today has nothing to do with what they intended. We merely re-interpret as we go. Somehow the moral mind of the 18th century is supposed to exclude the extreme few who signed a base document.
Click to expand...

It's called chronological snobbery and guilt by association.

You insinuated that because they owned slaves (or that they were "white" centered) their ideas were invalid.

MSgt said:
Next you'll be applying gay marriage to what the founding fathers intended.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not apart of The Constitution, it has no bearing on this discussion.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Our founding fathers idea of enlightenment was very white centered. We are not what our forefathers intended. We are what we intend. It amazes me how both sides of the argument seem to insist that the founding fathers would be on their side.
Click to expand...
They were a product of their times, and there is nothing wrong with that. All we can ever do is move forward. The fact that they were not as modernized as us in the 18th century does not make them undeserving of credit. Change is gradual. It is unrealistic to expect a leap from the laws enforced at the time of the founding fathers to a society which is completely unbiased and equal to all citizens. I do not value the hypothetical approval of the founding fathers, that is irrelevant. I do value their contributions, though, and that is something that cannot be taken away even as we move forward and away from the legislature they created.
 
reefedjib said:
I would argue we are what they intended although we have taken steps they would not have liked. But we have been able to take the Constitution where it needed to go.
Click to expand...

But you can't argue this. They are products of their own era. We took the Constitution where we decided to take it. Future generations will do the same. None of it has anything to do with what our founding fathers may have intended for their new country.

reefedjib said:
I am saying honor the Constitution. And give the FF due credit for creating it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and only this. I do not argue their intent as if I can re-create my illusions of what they believed in from generation to generation.
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong. The Constitution is like any other contract. Just because you think that you're hip doesn't give you the right to interpret it any way other than intended by its signers.
Click to expand...

Oh, but we are talking about founding fathers. Not a black and white document that gets ammended generation to generation.

Did the signers intend for gay marriage?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's called chronological snobbery and guilt by association.

You insinuated that because they owned slaves (or that they were "white" centered) their ideas were invalid.
Click to expand...

Um...no. What I stated was that they had different ideas and that they were products of their era. It was future generations that decided that their words meant something else. And so on and so on until people far removed find themselves dictating to the rest about what they intended.


Harry Guerrilla said:
Marriage is not apart of The Constitution, it has no bearing on this discussion.
Click to expand...

Oh...but it is if all men are created equal and have the same basic rights. Did they intend for them to be in the military? Did they intend for them to be outcasts from society? Or is this just one more example of how we re-interpret as we go in regards to what our founding fathers intended?

These are guys who created a document in which we have been basing things off of ever since. What we do has nothing to do with some deep down unexpressed feelings of a few select 18th century men. Oh...but we know what they intended as the cotton got picked.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Wrong. The Constitution is like any other contract. Just because you think that you're hip doesn't give you the right to interpret it any way other than intended by its signers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MSgt said:
Um...no. What I stated was that they had different ideas and that they were products of their era. It was future generations that decided that their words meant something else. And so on and so on until people far removed find themselves dictating to the rest about what they intended.
Click to expand...

Sure they had different ideas, which they came to a compromise on.

Why do you, and others like yourself, intentionally poison the well by constantly bringing up that they owned slaves?

It's been established that this was the case, it is not new information.
It has also been established that The Constitution was an ideal.
Something that was hoped to be lived up to by future generations.


MSgt said:
Oh...but it is if all men are created equal and have the same basic rights. Did they intend for them to be in the military? Did they intend for them to be outcasts from society? Or is this just one more example of how we re-interpret as we go in regards to what our founding fathers intended?
Click to expand...

It was an ideal, it was clear in the whole of the founding papers that they wanted men to be free from being constantly lorded over.

Sexual relations and marriage was not apart of The Constitution, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't say "Men (except gays) serve the militia," it just says men.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some say we still benefit from it today.

Does that make all of your, mine, his, her, their arguments and ideas invalid?
Click to expand...

They owned slaves. I don't.

Their ideas did not result in emancipation, nor did it result in women's suffrage.

Their ideas were not to provide the common person with an ability to fully affect their government, as electoral colleges became the answer to any direct democratic process.

I don't give a **** whether they thought slavery was wrong or not. They owned slaves. They believed that people were inferior because of their education level, or because of their status in society, or because of the color of their skin or whether or not they had a penis.

It's beautiful that some of their beliefs were that slavery was bad, but they walked through their streets and were willfully able to raise an army against the British, but not against oppression.

They were business savvy. Getting the British tariffs and taxes rid from the colonies was a savvy move. Freeing the slaves wasn't.
 
Nymphetamine said:
They were a product of their times, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...


That's all I've stated. We aren't talking about a group of Gandhis or Jesus'. Every social topic seems to come with an argument of what our founding fathers intended. It's BS. They produced a base document, but acknowledged that certain social standards were to be understood. This is why they didn't free their slaves or seek to get involved with European affairs of conflict after 1776. Nothing in the document states that we are to stay clear of European affairs, yet they were clear about France's issues on the contininent.

World War I and World War II was not what they intended. An American Civil War that tore the country in two (thereby forcing unity) was not what they intended. A raised status of non-whites was not what they intended (or is Obama what they wanted to see in their hearts of hearts?)

Future generations did this because we chose to re-interpret their words to suit our definitions. I can't stand when people use the founding fathers and their "intentions" to legitimize our present day decisions. It's retarded.
 
MSgt said:
But you can't argue this. They are products of their own era. We took the Constitution where we decided to take it. Future generations will do the same. None of it has anything to do with what our founding fathers may have intended for their new country.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arch Enemy said:
They owned slaves. I don't.

Their ideas did not result in emancipation, nor did it result in women's suffrage.

Their ideas were not to provide the common person with an ability to fully affect their government, as electoral colleges became the answer to any direct democratic process.

I don't give a **** whether they thought slavery was wrong or not. They owned slaves. They believed that people were inferior because of their education level, or because of their status in society, or because of the color of their skin or whether or not they had a penis.

It's beautiful that some of their beliefs were that slavery was bad, but they walked through their streets and were willfully able to raise an army against the British, but not against oppression.

They were business savvy. Getting the British tariffs and taxes rid from the colonies was a savvy move. Freeing the slaves wasn't.
Click to expand...

Now you're moving the goal posts.

You said they benefited, which can be argued that you also benefit from the previous institution of slavery.
Why should I listen to anything you say, you are a beneficiary of slavery?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why do you, and others like yourself, intentionally poison the well by constantly bringing up that they owned slaves?
Click to expand...

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.


Harry Guerrilla said:
It was an ideal, it was clear in the whole of the founding papers that they wanted men to be free from being constantly lorded over.
Click to expand...

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


Harry Guerrilla said:
Sexual relations and marriage was not apart of The Constitution, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't say "Men (except gays) serve the militia," it just says men.
Click to expand...

You brought up their 18th century status. Would it really have been their intent or not?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Now you're moving the goal posts.

You said they benefited, which can be argued that you also benefit from the previous institution of slavery.
Why should I listen to anything you say, you are a beneficiary of slavery?
Click to expand...

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.
 
reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, that I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom