Duchess Jack Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I've a question here for the strict constitutionalists.... Were the Founding Fathers 'super human' in some manner? Were they vastly greater than any other man - now or then. I ask because folk find them to be unquestionable in their wisdom and while they were exceptional individuals, I just don't see how things done or said in their age can apply today when there is commonplace technology that never in their wildest dreams could they have predicted and the world is more confusing, chaotic and assbackwards then ever. Their was a vastly smaller talent pool at the time of smart, wise, committed and educated people to draw from. There were way, way less books and access to knowlege and I'd venture that the education per capita is a hundredfold greater now then when they were building this country. I love this country and think that our Constitution is an amazing document, but it seems a little 'outdated'. I am not making a big issue over any single part of it - but strict constitutionalists seem to throw the baby out with the bath water when using it to support something or denounce something else. I think context is very important. I know they put in a mechnism where we could add amendments to the constitution, but if the sickness comes from the people expected to vote one way or another on an issue, then the mechinisims that allows it to be a living document - relevant to the times - is broken as well. Sadly it would be the same crooks that make our government a laughing stock that would be expected to create a new document, so we're screwed there as well. we've great men in this country, and many aspire to politics but lose that 'great men' thing along the way. blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 If not for the 4th amendment, who would protect you from Dick Cheney? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 anything written on tree bark is outdated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Of course they were superhuman. They were free masons and descended from the Templars, etc. Now be careful, the all-seeing eye is watching you. Edited July 16, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Throwing it out and starting anew would be a disaster without parallel and something, IMO, not to be contemplated. Not only that, I think we'd wind up with something pretty close to the same anyway. That's how it's lasted so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Why do you hate colonial America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Throwing it out and starting anew would be a disaster without parallel and something, IMO, not to be contemplated. Not only that, I think we'd wind up with something pretty close to the same anyway. That's how it's lasted so long. Because they were wise. But if it were done today male on male gestures would be encouraged (change we can believe in). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Throwing it out and starting anew would be a disaster without parallel and something, IMO, not to be contemplated. Not only that, I think we'd wind up with something pretty close to the same anyway. That's how it's lasted so long. agreed. its great because there are a lot of common truths and human nature in it and these things never change.... and we cannot even make a stimulous bill or health reform bill that's not all oozing with ickiness. again, the people running the government are the ones pooping in the waterhole. Edited July 16, 2009 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 It doesn't really matter at all anyway in the long run. There will never be a permanent nation or philosophy of governing in this world. There will always be old nations dying, and new nations rising up out of the ashes. Revolutions will continue (whether bloody or not). I think that just about any form of government COULD work well if only good people were involved. Since that will never be the case, I don't know that ANY form of government will ever be ideal. We're too selfish, too imperfect to allow it to happen. So suck on THAT Benjamin Franklin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 So suck on THAT Benjamin Franklin! There is a caption for the C-note if there ever was one. fwiw - I am watching the final episode of John Adams tonight. Its been good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Somewhere, CN is experiencing priapism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The truths of which they wrote and the themes they followed are entirely independent of how you can now cook your food or speak with your neighbor. The only question that would matter to me is if the very nature of man and of men have changed in the matter of a couple hundred of years. I would say no - protections, rights and responsibilties are the same. I think you get in trouble when you believe that the nature of man has changed. I'll agree that they lived in simpler times but it's just meaningless details that we have now. And we could never have the same document created now because there are too many agendas that would get in the way. Simple is always better. Complication is merely someone trying to get advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The truths of which they wrote and the themes they followed are entirely independent of how you can now cook your food or speak with your neighbor. The only question that would matter to me is if the very nature of man and of men have changed in the matter of a couple hundred of years. I would say no - protections, rights and responsibilties are the same. I think you get in trouble when you believe that the nature of man has changed. I'll agree that they lived in simpler times but it's just meaningless details that we have now. And we could never have the same document created now because there are too many agendas that would get in the way. Simple is always better. Complication is merely someone trying to get advantage. +1 gazillion I couldn't have put it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) the main thing is that they set up a government of laws, not of men. and the framework they created is just a rather remarkably designed system of checks and balances. all the problems of faction and tyranny within a representative democracy are largely the same now as they ever were. quite simply, the principles hold up extremely well. it was a unique set of historical/political circumstances that allowed such an enduring system to emerge. and, to get back to the main point about a nation where the rule of laws preside over the whims of powerful men, at this point you really can't go back on the principles of our constitution without ceasing to be that. as a practical matter, any significant change will be the imposition of the will of one faction over others. I know they put in a mechnism where we could add amendments to the constitution, but if the sickness comes from the people expected to vote one way or another on an issue, then the mechinisims that allows it to be a living document - relevant to the times - is broken as well. Sadly it would be the same crooks that make our government a laughing stock that would be expected to create a new document, so we're screwed there as well. why do you think the mechanisms are broken? I think they were intentionally designed to present a high hurdle. which mechanisms would you think are preferable? and beware of people who talk about our constitution as a "living document". referring to it as such indicates the speaker is uncomfortable with it as it stands and wants it to metamorphize into something it currently isn't. the constitution wasn't designed to be something shaped and molded by the whims of judges and politicians. it was designed to be changeable, but only when the just about the whole country really agreed it was necessary. Edited July 16, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 +1 gazillion I couldn't have put it better. Agree, fwiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The truths of which they wrote and the themes they followed are entirely independent of how you can now cook your food or speak with your neighbor. The only question that would matter to me is if the very nature of man and of men have changed in the matter of a couple hundred of years. I would say no - protections, rights and responsibilties are the same. I think you get in trouble when you believe that the nature of man has changed. I'll agree that they lived in simpler times but it's just meaningless details that we have now. And we could never have the same document created now because there are too many agendas that would get in the way. Simple is always better. Complication is merely someone trying to get advantage. +1 gazillion I couldn't have put it better. Agree, fwiw. +1 googleplex (or whatever our country's debt is now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 The founders were the right men at the right time and place in history. What will history say about us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Our founding fathers understood what it was like to live under the rule of an oppressive government, that would confiscate assets from one group to divvy up among their friends. They knew what it was like for the laws to change on the rulers whim. They knew what it was like to be over taxed so others could rest on their laurels. They understood we needed a week central government that helped make sure the states treated each other fairly, and that protected the states. They knew the less centralized the power the less likely there was to be waist, as it is much harder to take something from a man when you have to look him in the eye on a regular basis. They understood that the government should be limited and individual right should be protected, in lieu of government being protected and individual rights limited. They realized once government started doling out to the citizenry and the citizenry realized they could vote for it, we would be in trouble, and they were right. Look at what has happened. We have run away spending, 1/2 the populace are now net takers, and we are on borrowed time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Our founding fathers understood what it was like to live under the rule of an oppressive government, that would confiscate assets from one group to divvy up among their friends. They knew what it was like for the laws to change on the rulers whim. They knew what it was like to be over taxed so others could rest on their laurels. They understood we needed a week central government that helped make sure the states treated each other fairly, and that protected the states. They knew the less centralized the power the less likely there was to be waist, as it is much harder to take something from a man when you have to look him in the eye on a regular basis. They understood that the government should be limited and individual right should be protected, in lieu of government being protected and individual rights limited. They realized once government started doling out to the citizenry and the citizenry realized they could vote for it, we would be in trouble, and they were right. Look at what has happened. We have run away spending, 1/2 the populace are now net takers, and we are on borrowed time. See I disagree that they were crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 It's not that they were somehow super-human or better than us... as regular men, they had some very heated internal battles. They eventually agreed upon certain principles which reflected undeniable truths. It is those priciples which stand the test of time and remain forever sound, not the men that were wise enough to write them down (and offer their lives for them). The Founding Fathers are indeed to be admired and respected for what they did for us. Regardless of technology or changing demographics, liberty is still at the heart of our existence (not just as a nation but as a race of men) and that liberty will always be threatened not served by an over-reaching government. They did the best that they could to protect that liberty for us. I'd be curious as to what you think is out-dated and why. I'd also like to see how you would change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I ask because folk find them to be unquestionable in their wisdom and while they were exceptional individuals, I just don't see how things done or said in their age can apply today when there is commonplace technology that never in their wildest dreams could they have predicted and the world is more confusing, chaotic and assbackwards then ever. You know - you pretty much summed up my feelings exactly. Whenever I hear people refer back to the Constitution or say somethin like "our Founding Fathers intended __________", I don't buy it at all. No chance could they have anticipated what we would turn into through natural progression 200+ yrs later. The Constitution does spell out some inalienable rights and for the most part, they are timeless and hold true in any time, but there are things that simply don't as well. I don't profess to be able to quote the Constitution line for line so please don't hit me up for specific examples. I do know that from time to time you read or see things on the news and I say to myself - "ya, maybe back then that made sense, but it doesn't anymore". I guess one example - "Freedom of Speech". I don't believe the Founding Fathers could have ever anticipated how openly available anyone's free speech could potentially be now. "Right to Bear Arms" - I don't think they could have anticipated ready access to assault weapons. You could put a 21st Century spin on any one of the Bill of Rights and there would be likely deviations between what was intended at that moment in time and what makes sense today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.