The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont-matter/
This article is for those of you who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
Originally posted by vivifyThe fundamental thing you fail to understand is what the Founding Fathers stood for. They stood for limited government. Why did they stand for limited government and what does that mean?
The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont ...[text shortened]... ou who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
The Founding Fathers were prompted to rebel against England because they felt as though the government over them no longer represented them and exceeded it's authority over them. This was the motivation for wanting a limited government. So the first thing they set out to do was to limit government by telling it what it could not do. It could not preach from the pulpit as was done in the Chruch of England. It could not impose taxes that were too burdensome on the population etc.
Although laws and regulations help "protect" us and keep us "safe", there is a down side. The down side is that laws strip us of our freedoms. I think we can both agree that there should be a balance, but the balance is askew with a federal government that churns out about 80,000 regulations a year now, not to mention laws that have been created. Is our "safety" in such peril? Do these regulations and laws keep us "safe"?
Really the issue is morality. All laws, whether they be secular or religious, have a moral component to them. In addition, not all of us agree what is moral and what is not. After all, whose poo does not stink? This is the genious of limited government. It recognizes the fact that men should be free as much as possible to decide for themselves what moral path to follow so long as you are not directly curbing anothers freedoms. It is what has been sacrificed at the alter of progressivism. As a result, you are seeing and beginning of a police state with such legislation as the Patriot Act and the NDAA which now allows the government to detain its citizens without due process. It is also why we have wars abroad. For you see, as government expands it can't help but meddle all over the globe.
The only hope here in regards to freedom is to limit government. Personally I would like to see this happen without the country being lost, but then, it's not looking good right now. Either way, make no mistake, it will happen.
Whodey, you realize you're defending people that allowed slavery and thought it was okay for women to not have the right to vote, right? Yes, there are some exceptions, which you will no doubt bring as a point; but as a whole, the Founders allowed things that weren't "moral". The Founders should be acknowledged; but it's a mistake for any societyto remain stagnant, and not progress.
Since slavery was allowed, personal freedom and responsibility must be abolished! Can't you see the logic?
If slavery is wrong, then the Nanny State is right and with it Nanny State morality! Geesh, can't believe people are so blind and stupid! Quit holding on to your guns and religion.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf liberals actually tried to force change the Constitution through amendments, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. They don't use amendments, they use the courts.
Of course the founding fathers are infallible. That's why the constitution was never amended.
Originally posted by vivifyNo one ever said the Founding Fathers were infallible. As my friend pointed out, they installed a mechanism to change the Constitution. What they did create was a government of laws, not men, that has allowed for two hundred and twenty three years of nearly uninterrupted domestic peace, with one notable exception. That domestic peace has allowed for a run of economic success which is unprecedented in human history, both in terms of its magnitude and it's durability. The Constitution itself is one of the tremendous intellectual achievements in world history, and is the culmination of centuries of western philosophy.
The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont ...[text shortened]... ou who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
What I don't understand is how because you're slobbering over yourself worried that the part of the country that thinks correctly is going to kick your guy to the curb on November 6, you just think that we should tear the Constitution up - which Obama has already done anyway.
These men were great, learned men. I'll take Jefferson, Hamilton, or Franklin over you any day of the week. No offense.
Originally posted by EladarThey have to use the courts. They know that they could never get their communist ideas through the amendment process.
If liberals actually tried to force change the Constitution through amendments, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. They don't use amendments, they use the courts.
The Framers knew they weren't infallible. Nor did they wish future generations to blindly follow their present ideas and for the nation to stagnant; they believed in "evolution" of a sort - that progress toward greater freedom was inevitable.
The Constitution generally speaks in broad outlines and there is not one and one only possible interpretation as right wingers of today believe. The Framers themselves clashed over its meaning almost immediately after the Convention itself and such disagreements have never really waned. It is disingenuous and historically inaccurate for present day right wingers to claim anything to the contrary.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Constitution itself was a major expansion of central government power over the pre-existing Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Framers wanted a government limited in its powers as regards imposing restrictions on Natural Rights but robust enough to accomplish its legitimate ends.
The fundamental thing you fail to understand is what the Founding Fathers stood for. They stood for limited government. Why did they stand for limited government and what does that mean?
The Founding Fathers were prompted to rebel against England because they felt as though the government over them no longer represented them and exceeded it's authority o ...[text shortened]... then, it's not looking good right now. Either way, make no mistake, it will happen.
Originally posted by vivifyThe part of the article about Lincoln is completely inaccurate. Whether Lincoln was a "racist" by modern lights is debatable, but he was completely anti-slavery in his views. The article doesn't seem to realize that it was not within his Constitutional power to end slavery by Executive fiat and that the Emancipation Proclamation itself was stretching his powers to the limit.
The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont ...[text shortened]... ou who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
Originally posted by vivifySon, don't get so hysterical on me. I'm not advocating anarchy, I merely question the wisdom of passing over 80.000 regulations and laws a year. I also question your allegiance to a group of men who would deficate on the Constitution by enacting the NDAA......or do you agree with detaining American citizens indefinately without due process?
Whodey, you realize you're defending people that allowed slavery and thought it was okay for women to not have the right to vote, right? Yes, there are some exceptions, which you will no doubt bring as a point; but as a whole, the Founders allowed things that weren't "moral". The Founders should be acknowledged; but it's a mistake for any societyto remain stagnant, and not progress.