Is It Me? A Founding Fathers based rant.

[Gil Hamilton]

<rant mode="on">

Something has been caught in my craw when it comes to American political discussions. I don't know why, but it's there and it annoys me more than when I forget to air the filling a Hot Pocket before I bite it. I've noticed for some time now that often times during political or legal discussions, people like to evoke the Founding Fathers in order to attempt to cow the people they are arguing with into submission. Such as stuff like "Well, the Founding Fathers never intended for this to happen, so we shouldn't go through with it!" or "The Founding Fathers always intended for this to be so, and we've strayed away from it!" or my favorite from Bill O'Reilly "Answer me this, isn't President Bush the closest thing to what the Founding Father's intended as a president?" during the debate over the "Under God" part about the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, I'm neither unpatriotic or irreverant to my countries founders, but who the hell cares?

Don't get me wrong, the Framers were a swinging bunch of guys (in some cases) and had alot of really progressive ideas... 200 years ago. Very many ideas of theirs are still very applicable to our society. Some not so. However the world is a vastly different place nowadays. It seems incredibly illogical that some people think that divining and interpreting the policies of people who lived in a whole different era and then throwing them around in discussions like the word of ultimate authority that automatically ends all discussion on the matter, and damn thinking for oneself. Why should it matter whether the Founding Fathers would have been for or against a half percent increase in the sales tax of luxury craft? What does the facts about the issue here and now say about it? Oh, wait, I forgot. Weighing the issue by it's modern day pros and cons is inferior to divining why John Adams might have thought about it.

Maybe I'm stupid. Maybe I'm a stinking liberal commie who shouldn't ought say such thing. But really, it seems like evoking the intent of the Founding Fathers on issues that have to deal with the hear and now is the kid brother of the "Good Old Days" fallacy. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

</rant>

[Alyrium Denryle]

Answer me this, isn't President Bush the closest thing to what the Founding Father's intended as a president?" during the debate over the "Under God" part about the Pledge of Allegiance

Actually no. The founding fathers were, by and large humanists. The Major ones, would never want a president like Bush in power.

Maybe I'm stupid. Maybe I'm a stinking liberal commie who shouldn't ought say such thing.

Us "Skinking liberal commies" Need to stick together

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually no. The founding fathers were, by and large humanists. The Major ones, would never want a president like Bush in power.

Bill O'Reilly said it, not me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I know...I was just pointing out the awfulness.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Founding Fathers designed how this country was supposed to be run, and so they shall always remain the highest authorities on its operation. Referring back to their writings and words is an important way of discovering insight into their intent for the nation.

[Gil Hamilton]

The Founding Fathers designed how this country was supposed to be run, and so they shall always remain the highest authorities on its operation. Referring back to their writings and words is an important way of discovering insight into their intent for the nation.

By that logic, you have no right to vote since you are a woman and the Founding Fathers never intended for you to be able to vote.

Things change and society changes. I don't see why trying to divine the intent of people that all died over 150 years ago should have any consideration on issues in the hear and now. The only decent way to weigh an issue is to compare it's positive effects on society against it's negative effect and who gets effected by what. Anything else is dogmatic, and dogma is useless baggage.

[Tosho]

The Founding Fathers designed how this country was supposed to be run, and so they shall always remain the highest authorities on its operation. Referring back to their writings and words is an important way of discovering insight into their intent for the nation.

True, but unless I am mistaken Gil's point was things have changed and although the founding fathers are important in a modern society the opinions of men who been dead for two centuries shouldn't be treated as omniscient.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

By that logic, you have no right to vote since you are a woman and the Founding Fathers never intended for you to be able to vote.

Things change and society changes. I don't see why trying to divine the intent of people that all died over 150 years ago should have any consideration on issues in the hear and now. The only decent way to weigh an issue is to compare it's positive effects on society against it's negative effect and who gets effected by what. Anything else is dogmatic, and dogma is useless baggage.

Yes, society does change--that's the entire point. The Constitution was created with an amendment process, after all. That's why women can vote now. The Framers were not stupid, but rather realized that situations could change.

Basic principles, however, will remain the same. Things are just going to shift around them. Women, indeed, can vote now--but we're also going out into the world and taking on many of the roles that in the 18th century would be unimaginable for women of that era. We can vote precisely because have influence in society.

So the document the Framers created was one designed around those core fundamentals--but able to respond as the details shifted. The people who have power in society determined the outlook of the government in the 18th century; they still do now, except now they also include women, precisely because we have gained power in society.

That's the elegance and genius of the American Constitution.

[Ted C]

It seems incredibly illogical that some people think that divining and interpreting the policies of people who lived in a whole different era and then throwing them around in discussions like the word of ultimate authority that automatically ends all discussion on the matter, and damn thinking for oneself. Why should it matter whether the Founding Fathers would have been for or against a half percent increase in the sales tax of luxury craft? What does the facts about the issue here and now say about it?

But really, it seems like evoking the intent of the Founding Fathers on issues that have to deal with the hear and now is the kid brother of the "Good Old Days" fallacy.

I don't think that knowing the Founding Fathers' intent should "end all discussion" on a matter, but I do think it's important to understand why they chose to set up our government in a particular way. Only if we know why they did it a particular way in the first place can we really determine whether their reasoning still applies now.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't think that knowing the Founding Fathers' intent should "end all discussion" on a matter, but I do think it's important to understand why they chose to set up our government in a particular way. Only if we know why they did it a particular way in the first place can we really determine whether their reasoning still applies now.

But using "Framer intent" as an argument is dogma. Why should an issue be argued by anything other than it's pros and cons in the here and now, plus what it's possible long term effects are?

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes, society does change--that's the entire point. The Constitution was created with an amendment process, after all. That's why women can vote now. The Framers were not stupid, but rather realized that situations could change.

Yes, it is the point. Things change and that's one of the smart things about hte Constitution, that is is changable and editable, exactly because the Framers themselves never thought themselves to be infalliable or omniscient. They never thought that things wouldn't change in the future and their intent would never be replaced by more modern ideas based upon how society itself changes.

But you are now contradicting yourself. More on that in a second.

Basic principles, however, will remain the same. Things are just going to shift around them. Women, indeed, can vote now--but we're also going out into the world and taking on many of the roles that in the 18th century would be unimaginable for women of that era. We can vote precisely because have influence in society.

Here is where you are contradicting yourself. Now you are talking about how things shifting around, but that shifting around, in this case, women being allowed to vote. But before you said "The Founding Fathers designed how this country was supposed to be run, and so they shall always remain the highest authorities on its operation." If they are the highest authority on how it should be run, it actively goes against that authority to change things. In this case, the Founding Fathers never thought women should vote, in fact, most of them would have thought it this idea is incredibly silly. If they are the ultimate authority, as you directly stated before, then any change made goes against their will.

So the document the Framers created was one designed around those core fundamentals--but able to respond as the details shifted. The people who have power in society determined the outlook of the government in the 18th century; they still do now, except now they also include women, precisely because we have gained power in society.

Except that this shifting of details to fit the hear and now is impossible if we live by your dogma that the Founding Fathers are the highest authority on any issue. If they are the ultimate authority, then you shouldn't be able to vote, since they never intended for you to.

That's the elegance and genius of the American Constitution.

A genius you have no respect for, what with your "highest authority" nonsense.

[Ted C]

But using "Framer intent" as an argument is dogma. Why should an issue be argued by anything other than it's pros and cons in the here and now, plus what it's possible long term effects are?

Because we're using history as a guide, that's why.

Pick an issue like "Separation of Church and State". What did the writers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights intend to achieve with the Establishment Clause? Is that still a worthy goal today? If so, how is current government policy affecting that goal? Are there past precedents for how various laws in various places have affected that goal?

If you don't look back at where you've been, can you be sure where you're going? Can you tell if you've made any progress?

[Andrew J.]

They were progressive and important during the 1700s, but the ideas of the Founding Fathers have become either obvious (freedom of speech, seperation of church and state, balance of power) or outdated (voting restrictions, slavery, the electoral college).

[Enforcer Talen]

some think the electoral college should remain.

[Joe]

(voting restrictions, slavery, the electoral college).

The only real restriction on voting contained within the Constitution is the state appointment of Senators. The Constitution leaves voting primarily up to the states.

As for slavery, you can be sure that most of the major Founding Fathers didn't want the institution to continue to exist within America. Thomas Jefferson, for example, considered slaves to be human beings (as indicated by the earliest draft of the Declaration of Independence), and surely wouldn't have chosen to say "all men are created equal" if he hadn't intended for it to eventually be applied to Negro slaves. He had to have anticipated that this language could eventually be applied to slaves.

As for the EC, well, this has already been debated at great length in a few different threads.

[Gil Hamilton]

As for slavery, you can be sure that most of the major Founding Fathers didn't want the institution to continue to exist within America. Thomas Jefferson, for example, considered slaves to be human beings (as indicated by the earliest draft of the Declaration of Independence), and surely wouldn't have chosen to say "all men are created equal" if he hadn't intended for it to eventually be applied to Negro slaves. He had to have anticipated that this language could eventually be applied to slaves.

Um, Thomas Jefferson owned quite a few slaves. If he considered them equal men, would he have kept them?

[Joe]

He was flawed. Inconsistent. Imperfect. Not to mention poorly-off financially.

His writings, both private and public, seem to indicate that he wanted slavery to vanish within a number of years.

[UltraViolence83]

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

It's quotes like that that honestly bring a tear to my eye. The founding fathers were Gods among men.

Don't knock T.J., he's my favorite one, dammit!

Old Ben Franklin also kicked a little ass what with his lightning key and all.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

He was flawed. Inconsistent. Imperfect. Not to mention poorly-off financially.

His writings, both private and public, seem to indicate that he wanted slavery to vanish within a number of years.

Not to mention that Benjamin Franklin quite clearly indicated that he wanted slavery to end--in the most vigorous terms.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here is where you are contradicting yourself. Now you are talking about how things shifting around, but that shifting around, in this case, women being allowed to vote. But before you said "The Founding Fathers designed how this country was supposed to be run, and so they shall always remain the highest authorities on its operation." If they are the highest authority on how it should be run, it actively goes against that authority to change things. In this case, the Founding Fathers never thought women should vote, in fact, most of them would have thought it this idea is incredibly silly. If they are the ultimate authority, as you directly stated before, then any change made goes against their will.

No - They designed how it was supposed to run - not the conditions under which it was to operate. Those were impossible for them to have any bearing on, and, furthermore, they knew it.

Except that this shifting of details to fit the hear and now is impossible if we live by your dogma that the Founding Fathers are the highest authority on any issue. If they are the ultimate authority, then you shouldn't be able to vote, since they never intended for you to.

Again, see above. They are not the highest authorities on American society, Gil--they're the highest authorities on American government. Which, it is quite clear, must be responsive to American society. That doesn't change the basic institutions of the government, however.

[Gandalf]

If you Americans would just have a Communist Revolution you could make your constitution whatever you wanted, then you could live in a workers paradise. Everyone wins.

[Andrew J.]

(voting restrictions, slavery, the electoral college).

The only real restriction on voting contained within the Constitution is the state appointment of Senators. The Constitution leaves voting primarily up to the states.

Wasn't there something in the Constitution about having to own a certain amount of property, too?

[UltraViolence83]

I used to be against electoral college, but now I've seen how many Americans don't even know the basics of government so maybe it is for the better...Back in 2001 a friend fucking asked me who the President was 6 months after the election. These people don't deserve to vote; luckily they don't.