The Original Intent Of The Founders

[ditchdj]

Well, it didn't cover slavery. It didn't cover women's rights. Etc. etc. Which is why it's necessary for us to be able to change it from what the creators intended.

Sounds to me like the Ninth Amendment would fit in right here......

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

----In other words, our rights aren't limited to soley the Constitution. We can create laws and regulations that secure other rights for the people on our own.

[Gravekeeper]

Aw, and wouldn't you know....still....soliders still die every day to protect you and your right to say whatever you want.

Bullshit. I hate that arguement. No soldier is currently dying for that. Not even from my country. Neither war has anything to do with that.

Also, the fact they got something right doesn't mean they're infalliable and could peer into the future. Their original intentions are more a philosophical question, not a political one. Thus is the problem. You can't shape the political policy of a modern country by trying to guess at what dead guys from 200 years ago were thinking. Especially when no one agrees on what they were thinking. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

The original intent of the founding fathers should be completely irrelevant. I don't care if they wanted a strong federal government, a weak federal government, or a government run solely by monkeys throwing stuff at the words 'yes' or 'no'. Their intention is irrelevant. They gave us this country. Its a wonderful thing. But we shouldn't keep thinking "What would they do?"

What we should do is do our best to govern and participate in this country as we see proper. Not try to guess what they would like.

[Greenday]

Sounds to me like the Ninth Amendment would fit in right here......

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

----In other words, our rights aren't limited to soley the Constitution. We can create laws and regulations that secure other rights for the people on our own.

The existence of the 13th-15th amendments along with the 19th amendment show how that the 9th amendment really isn't a catch all. If it was, we wouldn't have need to add amendments.

The original intent of the founding fathers should be completely irrelevant. I don't care if they wanted a strong federal government, a weak federal government, or a government run solely by monkeys throwing stuff at the words 'yes' or 'no'. Their intention is irrelevant. They gave us this country. Its a wonderful thing. But we shouldn't keep thinking "What would they do?"

What we should do is do our best to govern and participate in this country as we see proper. Not try to guess what they would like.

This. They did everything to let us run our own country. So that's what we need to do: run our own country how WE want it.

[smileyeagle1021]

I've already defended my remark; try to keep up.

Perhaps you missed my point that you had a good argument... may I ask how I would know that if I weren't keeping up
You know, there is a book out there that you should read called "they say/Isay". The basic premise is (and it is a surprisingly simple one) that when trying to write persuasively the first thing you do is predict how other people will react and respond to them before you even begin to make your argument.

That wasn't an ad hominem attack I made on rhetoric. Would you like a nice little tu quoque?

I haven't taken an argument class in 5 years, so I will concede that what you did may indeed not have been ad hominem... doesn't change the fact that it was bad argument. It may be a strong opinion, but with nothing to back it (without having to be called on it) it is not an argument.

They couldn't agree with each other? Well, initially. But they did pull together and put out the Constitution, didn't they?

Indeed they did, they did get the Constitution written and established a nation... that is quite an accomplishment. Then again we also just had Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed, we didn't even come close to having everyone agree on that. We've had the tax code updated with much content and not much agreement.
Compromise doesn't mean agreement, it just means that everyone involved realizes it is the best they can hope for. Doesn't mean that's what they all want, just what they are willing to settle for.

[Ipecac Drano]

Perhaps you missed my point that you had a good argument... may I ask how I would know that if I weren't keeping up
You know, there is a book out there that you should read called "they say/Isay". The basic premise is (and it is a surprisingly simple one) that when trying to write persuasively the first thing you do is predict how other people will react and respond to them before you even begin to make your argument.

"You will reply to this post in some capacity. I know it." How was that?

I haven't taken an argument class in 5 years, so I will concede that what you did may indeed not have been ad hominem... doesn't change the fact that it was bad argument. It may be a strong opinion, but with nothing to back it (without having to be called on it) it is not an argument.

You might get an argument from me!

Indeed they did, they did get the Constitution written and established a nation... that is quite an accomplishment. Then again we also just had Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed, we didn't even come close to having everyone agree on that. We've had the tax code updated with much content and not much agreement.
Compromise doesn't mean agreement, it just means that everyone involved realizes it is the best they can hope for. Doesn't mean that's what they all want, just what they are willing to settle for.

Then it doesn't matter that they didn't agree. All that matters is that we have the Constitution.

[smileyeagle1021]

It does matter that they didn't agree, because to say that the Constitution is the Founding Father's "original intent" is misleading. The Constitution was none of their original intent, it was what they were willing to agree to after compromise. This is not to say that the Constitution is not a valuable document and what we should use to base how government operates...
There is a difference between following the document that they wrote as a guideline to how to govern and turning quotes from the authors as gospel.

[Hyena Dandy]

The Founding Fathers weren't gods. They weren't aliens. They were men. Men who were simply doing what they saw as best, what they saw as right. They were farmers, lawyers, politicians. They were, by and large, good men, as most men are. They were, for the most part, intelligent. They may have founded this country, but they don't run it. They lived over two hundred years ago.

They didn't like each-other very much. I've always thought the best July 4th movie is 1776. It shows who the founding fathers were. Just men. Good men, mostly. Honest, maybe... But they were people, like you and me. They were influenced by the ideas of their time, just as we are by the ideas of ours. Look at how different the world is, ideologically, politically, in every way. Take the Constitution. Its good. It outlines how this country should be run. I like it. But if we take every word one or another said, and try to use that on how to run our lives... That's ridiculous. They were just men.

Now I'm not saying that we should disrespect their accomplishments. They founded a country, and I'd say they founded a damn good one. That's a hell of a lot of work. And we should try to keep true to what they founded. But we shouldn't treat them like gods. They founded The United States of America. But, right now, they don't live in it. They can't tell us what to do, because they're not here right now.

And so, I guess I'd say that, despite it being what you called 'Epic Fail' I think my opinion is more valid than John Adams about today's politics. However, should a matter of 18th century politics come up, I will defer to him on the subject.

[Ipecac Drano]

It does matter that they didn't agree, because to say that the Constitution is the Founding Father's "original intent" is misleading. The Constitution was none of their original intent, it was what they were willing to agree to after compromise. This is not to say that the Constitution is not a valuable document and what we should use to base how government operates...
There is a difference between following the document that they wrote as a guideline to how to govern and turning quotes from the authors as gospel.

And, again, what matters is the Constitution.

As for HD: thank you for repeating yourself. We've moved forward without you.

[Ladeeda]

No, the Constitution is what we started with. It's not all that matters. Changes have been made over the years, and parts of it have become irrelevent over time with the changes.

It's not even the foundation of the country. Just the first bricks laid down.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's not even the foundation of the country. Just the first bricks laid down.

Thank you... if we really want to argue about the foundation of the country, we should look at the Magna Carta (sp?) which is what many in the first congress used as their guide for the Constitution (which, btw, wasn't even the first governing document... originally our nation was run by the "Articles of Confederation" which was a disaster in its own rights.)
If we want to pull the patriotism card, then the true foundation of this nation is those soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom and never got to see the Constitution being written. If I really were interested in the opinions of people long dead on what this country should stand for, I'd want to ask them.

Something I don't think has been brought up in this thread (I know it has been brought up elsewhere though) is that if we go off the Constitution as it was originally written (hell, even include the first 10 Amendments, just to give a little bit of credit to the founding fathers), the Founding Father's original intent was that slavery was legal, non white were 3/5 of a person, and women and non-whites (hell even whites who didn't own property) couldn't vote. That being the case, thank God we no longer live in a nation that follows that original intent. If we today were to have the same laws as was put in the original Constitution before it was amended we would be labeled as human rights violators and rightfully so.
The Constitution is important, but it should not supersede what we have now learned to be right, that is why it can be amended. With that in mind, we should not be allowing quotes from people who are long dead and can no longer amend what they've said in light of a new situation to dictate law. Should we consult those quotes as a guide of how they may have proceeded finding a solution to the problem, sure, but trying to use them as a solution is, in my humble opinion, quite foolish.

[Ipecac Drano]

No, the Constitution is what we started with. It's not all that matters. Changes have been made over the years, and parts of it have become irrelevent over time with the changes.

No, it's not all that matters; but it still matters.

It's not even the foundation of the country. Just the first bricks laid down.

And those same brick still remain and support.

So, besides repeating that changes have been made, that times have changed, you guys are alive and the Founding Fathers are dead, is there anything else that the Teabaggers are coaching you to say?

[Ladeeda]

No, it's not all that matters; but it still matters.


And those same brick still remain and support.

Exactly. BUT, we've got different materials, different climate, new systems, and just those bricks aren't enough to hold up the house. Without all those new bricks that have been added over the years, there wouldn't be a country.

If the Constitution alone was enough, the FFs wouldn't have bothered with more laws, acts, edits, and whatnot. They didn't just sign that and say, "Okay, done forever".

Countries that fall fall because something big happens and they can't or don't adapt and adjust. The USA has been hit with a LOT of things in only 200+ years, and survived because it's adapted with the political, economic, etc climates. If we'd just gone with what the first politictians put on paper, we'd have gone down ages ago. A country, especially a large, first-world country, can't stagnate or it won't last. It requires maintenance. You can't leave an old house alone or it will just fall apart. It needs add-ons, repairs, replacements, and updates.

All who are sick of my Country=House metaphor, say Aye.

[Ipecac Drano]

All who are sick of my Country=House metaphor, say Aye.

If you want to do away with the Constitution, then nobody has the right to say "aye" or "nay".

[Ladeeda]

If you want to do away with the Constitution, then nobody has the right to say "aye" or "nay".

Where in the name of Voldemort's nutsack did I say that?