We should not treat the Founding Fathers as if they were gods whose opinions cannot be disagreed with...
Good thing no one has put forth such an argument.
After all, even the FFs didn't agree on everything.
There were some things they were all in agreement on; inalienable rights, free markets, limited government.
The problem is that many people who should know better (including posters here) think that whenever there is a controversy over the Constitution, all you have to do is see what the FFs say and an answer will magically appear. That concept is ridiculous, of course.
Who are you talking about, specifically?
In the sense that they treat them as superhumans...
Who's they?
...whose opinions are more important than those of average Americans, yes, they are.
Well, since the average American is a political ignoramus who knows little to nothing about the Constitution - let alone how to properly interpret it - I think it's pretty reasonable to place the views of the Founders above that of Joe Six-pack.
Why? They never used a computer, flew on an airplane, or fought a war in another country across the ocean. They were farmers and silversmiths and country lawyers.
Who gives a damn whether or not they flew on an airplane or used a computer!? I know plenty of morons who have done both of those things and as far as I can tell it hasn't provided them with any special insights into human nature or legal interpretation.
But they never intended the government of this nation to be set in an unchanging stasis dictated by the mores and beliefs of the early 19th century.
This has been a recurrent straw man throughout the thread. Let's stop pretending that anyone has made such an argument.
I would say that their ideas weren't more important.
The average American is an ignorant moron who knows little to nothing about economics, law, and political philosophy.
OF COURSE the Founders' opinions are more relevant than theirs'.
Do we think the average American's opinion on gravity is more important than Isaac Newton's?
Well, if I recall correctly, Franklin did go over to Paris and help stir up the revolution. Spoke at salons, etc. He was part of the inspiration for it, I believe.
A small part.
But no, he did not do any actual fighting.
They all put themselves in great danger by fomenting a rebellion against the most powerful nation on the planet. Had they lost the war, all of them would have been killed and their estates confiscated.
Because it didn't need to be. Amending the Constitution is, for the most part, unnecessary.
That's strange. Why would the Framers put in something that was largely superfluous?
Most everything that we need, even as a modern society is there. All that needs to occur is for what is written to be interpreted and applied to current situations. Pretty easy to do, and it has been done for more than two centuries. If this wasn't the case, we would have to throw out and rewrite the Constitution every 50 years or so. Why, when this amazing document is fully adequate. This is also why, as Hamilton said, the language was kept general and not specific. So it WOULD apply to future generations.
If future generations can interpret the USC to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean, the document is useless and should be discarded.
What do you mean they don't really exist anymore?
They've already been thought of and elaborated upon at great length by our ancestors; of course, there will be variations and permutations of these core philosophies and theories, but there are no "new" ones anymore.
Really? You don't think that being able to travel anywhere on the planet doesn't change human nature?
You don't think being able to exterminate an entire city with the click of a button has changed human nature?
You don't think the ability for a superpower to effectively eliminate every human being on this planet thru nuclear warfare has changed human nature?
You don't think the fact that I ate a more diverse diet this past month and most months of the year, than my grandparent's parents had in their entire life has changed human nature?
No, of course not. Human nature hasn't changed a bit. We're still
fundamentally the same; selfish animals who are driven to survive and procreate.
Humans are creatures of adaptation. Human nature is determined by humans environment more than by human genetics.
There has been no
fundamental alteration of human nature. If you and I were starving and a steak was thrown between us, we'd fight till the death for it; the fact that we both traveled on airplanes and had good diets wouldn't make a bit of difference.
And the amendment process is how the constitution is changed, which is why it is an evolving document.
:roll:
Except that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about wrong-headed interpretations of the Constitution by the judiciary which legitimize unconstitutional expansions of government power.
Not
fundamentally. We're still the same.
