The Original Intent Of The Founders

[Ipecac Drano]

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

What in the hell were you doing in his nut sac?


Isn't freedom of speech part of the Constitution?

[Ladeeda]

Isn't freedom of speech part of the Constitution?

What does that have to do with anything? I want to know where you saw me say I wanted to get rid of the Constitution.

[Ipecac Drano]

What does that have to do with anything? I want to know where you saw me say I wanted to get rid of the Constitution.

I thought that you had a problem with the Constitution being outdated. Freedom of speech is one of those things that is not only part of the Constitution but never goes out of style.

So, what are you proposing?

[Ladeeda]

I thought that you had a problem with the Constitution being outdated. Freedom of speech is one of those things that is not only part of the Constitution but never goes out of style.

So, what are you proposing?

No, I said it needs to be kept current. The Constitution alone isn't enough, and people who wrote it had ideas and intentions that could not last.

Freedom of Speech lasted because it's still relevant. Slavery did not. White male landowners only for voting didn't last because everyone else got up in arms about their lack of civil rights and say in what goes on in the country, and instead of clinging to What The Founders Intentions Were, those groups were given the right to vote, etc.

Indeed, they were GIVEN the Freedom of Speech that the founders denied them. Some of those Inalienable Rights weren't provded to All Men, who apparently were not Created so Equal according to the Founders.

[Ipecac Drano]

No, I said it needs to be kept current.

It gets amended. Don't worry, be happy.

[Ladeeda]

...yes, I'm well aware that it got amended. That's what I'm talking about. The Amendments often are not in line with what the Original Intent of the Founders.

And that is a good thing.

Understand now?

[Ipecac Drano]

...yes, I'm well aware that it got amended. That's what I'm talking about. The Amendments often are not in line with what the Original Intent of the Founders.

Not all of them are "not in line".

And that is a good thing.

Maybe. It depends on what kind of agenda you have.

Understand now?

Let me down a few more beers and then I'll see.

[Ladeeda]

Not all of them are "not in line".

To quote myself...

The Amendments often are not in line with what the Original Intent of the Founders.

Often means "not always".

Maybe. It depends on what kind of agenda you have.

Please expand on this. Which of the amendments that go against the FF's original intent are the result of an agenda, and why are they not a good t hing?

Let me down a few more beers and then I'll see.

If you just don't have an additional argument, say nothing until you think of something.

[Ipecac Drano]

Please expand on this. Which of the amendments that go against the FF's original intent are the result of an agenda, and why are they not a good t hing?

Better yet, give some examples of some new and exciting amendments that are not in line with those old, boring ones by the fuddy duddies.

If you just don't have an additional argument, say nothing until you think of something.

You caught me when I was sober and vulnerable. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

[Ladeeda]

Better yet, give some examples of some new and exciting amendments that are not in line with those old, boring ones by the fuddy duddies.

Fine, I'll go first:

Women's right to vote.

President limited to two terms.

Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes.

Your turn.

[Ipecac Drano]

Fine, I'll go first:

Women's right to vote.

President limited to two terms.

Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes.

Your turn.

So, which previous amendments do those contradict?

[Greenday]

So, which previous amendments do those contradict?

Well, they prove that we need to make our own choices instead of just going with what the founding father's thought we should have.

[smileyeagle1021]

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?

Umm, the Teabaggers are the ones who worship the Founding Father's as if they were Christ's brothers, I'm not sure they would be coaching people to say any of those things... just saying.

Also something I'm not seeing addressed really is that it sounds like everyone here is arguing the same thing at different levels. I don't hear anyone saying that the Constitution should be thrown out or that it can't stay relevant. That debate, even if it were happening, is a separate matter though from the original question, which was what place should the Founding Father's original intent hold in our current politics. The question at hand is should we allow quotes from people who weren't even talking about our current situations (I guarantee there is not a quote from the founding father's talking about the government's role in directing internet traffic) or worse those who are making guesses on what they would have said if they were alive (hell, do that with people who are alive even... go on, tell me how I would respond to the question, how best can we improve the efficiency of the United States Postal Service, using nothing but my other posts to come up with a response), or if we should trust those who are alive and are able to do the research for the problem at hand and can speak for themselves?

[Mytical]

Bad smileyeagle...you are advocating THINKING. We should not think, just do as the 'founding fathers' command. ((Sorry I just couldn't resist..))

[Ipecac Drano]

Well, they prove that we need to make our own choices instead of just going with what the founding father's thought we should have.

That didn't answer my question.

Umm, the Teabaggers are the ones who worship the Founding Father's as if they were Christ's brothers, I'm not sure they would be coaching people to say any of those things... just saying.

They aren't revering (no pun intended) the Founding Fathers. They claim that they do, but, no. They're just wolves in sheeps' clothing.