Founding fathers were village idiots.

When was the last time a bill failed to pass the Congress because it was deemed unconstitutional? When was the last time the President refused to sign a bill because they deemed it unconstitutional? When was the last time nullification was a respected power of the state governments?


Ummm...don't you geddit? When members of Congress think a bill is unconstitutional they cast a "no" vote. The president can use the veto for the same purpose. It happens all the frickin' time. How is that difficult to understand?
 
Last edited:
The Tea Party (the original one) mentality gave us the Declaration of Independence. It was appreciation for and recognition of God given unalienable rights that gave us the Constitution of the USA.

And they did it slow and they did it carefully, probably with hundreds of rewrites over six long years of discussion and consideration. They did it by debating it fully and considering every consequence resulting from the words they wrote that they could think of and that was done in the light of day with full disclosure of what everybody thought about it. And when Thomas Jefferson did the final edit and attached the preamble, six tears after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, every single signatory knew every syllable, jot, and tittle, and what every clause meant.

And then the people in the various states were given ample time to see, understand, and debate the content so that it was more than a year later that the document was finally ratified.

No other document has ever been so carefully crafted over so long a period and the strength of it withstood the test of so much time as has the Constitution of the United States of America.

If we took even half as much care and allowed half as much light on all far reaching important legislation passed, we would have had far less grief.

I am not saying they were wrong, and that they didn't do good. I refering to the fact the Articles of the Confederation didn't last very long.

The Articles were the first constitution and served us well. The Framers of the Constitution we now have, however, knew that the Articles did not accomplish all the ideals or adequately secure our rights for a great experiment in which the people would govern themselves for the first time in recorded world history.

Many components of the Articles were incorporated into the final Constitution, but the final Constitution, as the Articles did not, ensured that the people would determine their own destiny and that would not be chosen for them by an authoritarian government authority. It was that simple concept that set the United States of America apart from any other nation.

Unfortunately, too many people have not been taught the history and piece by piece we have been reverting back to the old country mentality of rulers and the ruled. The Tea Party spirit hopes to stop that trend in its tracks and return to the original vision.

Too bad I gotta spread mre REP around.
 
FOUNDING FATHERS WERE VILLAGE IDIOTS.

I didn't sign the Constitution. I wasn't even alive when it was made. Why should I follow it or even care? You can't sign a contract on behalf of another person without their consent.

Why are flawed old white men called our founding fathers allowed to write a document hundreds of years ago that we follow today more closely than the bible? We let them control our lives too much. I thought we did not want old white men involved in our lives?



The Myth of the
"Founding Fathers"
By: Adolf H. Nixon

Some persons, especially the extreme right-wing Republicans preach that we must go back to the ways of the "Founding Fathers." In particular, they want judges to ignore 220 years of progress and history. They desire to turn the calendar back to the politics of 1787.
For conservatives, the myth is that somehow the Founding Fathers were giants, better than we are today, smarter, more able, more clever. Above all, the conservatives argue that the Founding Fathers were more "moral" than you or me. :lol: They were like the Olympian heroes of ancient mythology, at least according to our conservative brethren. But conservatives are always looking backwards and not seeing very clearly. They have problems coping with present realities.
The conservatives want us to accede to those mythical heroes. We are expected to abandon our own good sense and trust the Founding Fathers' judgment over our own.
Of course, most rational persons realize that such political mythology is sheer nonsense, but it begs the question, who were the Founding Fathers and what makes them so great that they're wiser than you are?
The term "Founding Fathers" is somewhat vague. My dictionary says that it didn't even come into use until about 1914. It was applied to the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Our Constitution or what remains of it after 27 of the most serious blunders have been corrected by amendments, rests on the philosophy, genius, morality and ethics of the rather small committee which concocted it. We must look to those Founding Fathers to see what kinds of guys they were that we should surrender our good sense to theirs.
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shinning example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
Present-day conservatives and other right-wing fanatics insist that we (and especially judges) revere the Founding Fathers, sublimating our twenty-first century experience to their own. I have nothing against the Founding Fathers. They weren't so bad, but certainly not so good, either, about like conservative Republicans today. They certainly were NOT representative of the population of the country, then or now. If they represented anyone, it was a mere 2% of the population.
Number of women: 0
Number of Native Americans: 0
Number of Hispanics: 0
Number of Afro-Americans: 0
Number of poor persons: 0
Number of indentured servants: 0
Number of Jews: 0
Number of non-land owners: 0
Number of Moslems: 0
etc., etc.
None of those kinds of persons were considered important enough (then or now) to have a real say in the Constitution or its protections.
Our rather defective Constitution was patched together by the 1787 Constitutional Convention because the earlier Articles of Confederation had flopped as a frame of government. The Articles of Confederation had been written by the rabble-rouser John Dickenson (1732-1805). Even though they failed as a sane basis for a government, Dickenson was right back at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to try his hand again. At least he was smarter that George W. Bush and realized that one has to admit errors and try again.
In 1786 only 9 years after the Articles of Confederation had been tried, the old and powerful families of Virginia put together a committee to meet with delegates from the other states in order to design a better frame of government.
Rhode Island didn't care enough about it to send anybody, but representatives from the other 12 states answered an invitation issued by Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), a bastard "and illegal alien" living in New York. Ranging in age from the 27 year-old Jonathan Dayton (1760-1824) to the 82 year-old Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) the convention gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787. Altogether, the individual states appointed 65 wealthy men to be Founding Fathers, ten of them didn't bother to show up at the convention. They had important work to do and, maybe a manicure to schedule. So a mere 55 well-to-do gentlemen stopped by for grog and scones in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Of those 55, only 39 Founding Fathers actually liked the Constitution enough to sign it. The other 16 visited the many Philadelphia whorehouses and ambled back home.
Things might have turned out differently had Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) not been in Europe. He was one of the few voices of real civil liberty in America. Here are the 39 much-revered Founding Fathers who invented the Constitution, the guys we're supposed to look up to, the guys judges are supposed to worship:

The Conservatives' Founding Fathers /81001/
:evil:If you wonder why there are so many problems with American politics, look at how many of these guys were lawyers.

How many of these sterling Founding Fathers have you ever heard of before? and you are supposed to follow them blindly? Which ones represent you or the way you live or think? Conservatives who want you to obey these Founding Fathers have very strange morality and don't know what they're talking about.

LMAO:lol:


:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

Any chance that you could get this on the front page of the NY Times, The Miami Hearld, The Dallas Morning News, The Arizona Republic, The LA Times and any of the Local "Intelligentsias" in the first week of this coming November?

If ya could, we'd REALLY appreciate it. It would be VERY HELPFUL if you could get this kind of thinkin' out there when it counts. I amjust postive that you would make a real difference.
 
When was the last time a bill failed to pass the Congress because it was deemed unconstitutional? When was the last time the President refused to sign a bill because they deemed it unconstitutional? When was the last time nullification was a respected power of the state governments?


Ummm...don't you geddit? When members of Congress think a bill is unconstitutional they cast a "no" vote. The president can use the veto for the same purpose. It happens all the frickin' time. How is that difficult to understand?

Sure, that's how it happens. But I notice you don't have an answer for the nullification question, which is where the real teeth are.
 
Perhaps a fully informed adult signing of a binding covenant should be required of everyone desiring to take part in decision making by the body politic.


Sounds a lot like registering to vote.

Not hardly, mny register and vote simply because otherwise you will be pillaged by the mob with no way to fight back soooooooo you register and vote for one crop of corrupt politicians or another hoping they will pillage more for you than others pillage from you.

Declining to sign that binding covenant I mentioned earlier should exempt the non-signer from any tax or requirement of service EXCEPT for government services specifically contracted.

THAT would cut government down to size
 
Yeah. We really should have had Native Americans, women, single moms, Marxists, and maybe a gay black WAC with a bad leg participating in the writing of the Constitution.

If we hadn't left it to a few old white guys to write, instead of the Constitutional document that was so brilliantly conceived and so magnificent in its simplicty, we might have a 2200 page tomb of the clarity and coherence similar to the healthcare legislation that was just passed.

Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781. It was a long and arduous process.

Actually, the Constitution was written in 1787, and completed ratification in 1788, so not that long and arduous a process. The US was founded and operated under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution.
 
When was the last time a bill failed to pass the Congress because it was deemed unconstitutional? When was the last time the President refused to sign a bill because they deemed it unconstitutional? When was the last time nullification was a respected power of the state governments?


Ummm...don't you geddit? When members of Congress think a bill is unconstitutional they cast a "no" vote. The president can use the veto for the same purpose. It happens all the frickin' time. How is that difficult to understand?

Sure, that's how it happens. But I notice you don't have an answer for the nullification question, which is where the real teeth are.


There is no nullification question. Read Article 6 of the Constitution. Nullification is expressly prohibited.
 
I didn't sign the Constitution. I wasn't even alive when it was made. Why should I follow it or even care? You can't sign a contract on behalf of another person without their consent.

This question from the OP does at least deserve to be pondered. Perhaps Citizenship should NOT be assumed simply because of place of birth. Perhaps a fully informed adult signing of a binding covenant should be required of everyone desiring to take part in decision making by the body politic. Those not wanting to sign the Constitution contract could remain as resident non-citizens as long as they kept their nose clean and paid cash on the barrelhead for any State services provided.

Or perhaps the OP should realize that the Constitution isn't a contract she's bound to "without her consent". She gave consent when she chose to remain in this country and benefit from the way of life given us by our Constitution. Any time she does not wish to be party to it, she can pick up and leave, no harm, no foul. In fact, I doubt anyone would give a damn.
 
Yeah. We really should have had Native Americans, women, single moms, Marxists, and maybe a gay black WAC with a bad leg participating in the writing of the Constitution.

If we hadn't left it to a few old white guys to write, instead of the Constitutional document that was so brilliantly conceived and so magnificent in its simplicty, we might have a 2200 page tomb of the clarity and coherence similar to the healthcare legislation that was just passed.

Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781. It was a long and arduous process.

Actually, the Constitution was written in 1787, and completed ratification in 1788, so not that long and arduous a process. The US was founded and operated under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution.

Yes. I was incorrect. And the Constitution went into effect March, 1789.
 
Ummm...don't you geddit? When members of Congress think a bill is unconstitutional they cast a "no" vote. The president can use the veto for the same purpose. It happens all the frickin' time. How is that difficult to understand?

Sure, that's how it happens. But I notice you don't have an answer for the nullification question, which is where the real teeth are.


There is no nullification question. Read Article 6 of the Constitution. Nullification is expressly prohibited.

Could you quote the relevant article and section for me?
 
Perhaps a fully informed adult signing of a binding covenant should be required of everyone desiring to take part in decision making by the body politic.


Sounds a lot like registering to vote.

Not hardly, mny register and vote simply because otherwise you will be pillaged by the mob with no way to fight back soooooooo you register and vote for one crop of corrupt politicians or another hoping they will pillage more for you than others pillage from you.

Declining to sign that binding covenant I mentioned earlier should exempt the non-signer from any tax or requirement of service EXCEPT for government services specifically contracted.

THAT would cut government down to size

And where do your voting rights come from?
 
..........................


There is no nullification question. Read Article 6 of the Constitution. Nullification is expressly prohibited.

Sure about that??????????

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
 
The founding fathers were brilliant, this is one of those horrible OPs IMO.

They created the best damn government possible IMO, with checks and balances to prevent one branch from getting too much power and attempting to limit widespread corruption as much as possible. They allowed the ability to the laws to be interpreted with the changing times having SCOTUS being able to rule on it and the ability to change the constitution, but not too easy to do so.

The government they put in place, with the help of the vast resources in the land in which the country was formed, and a hard working citizenry made this country rise up from nowhere to be a world power in relatively short time considering the other powers in the world were around for centuries.

I would kindly felate anyone of the founding fathers for their brilliance:razz:
I would have pos reped you except for that last sentence. If someone has 40 pos they want to toss your way, I would be grateful. But 90, no.
Eeeeeeeeuw!

Madison, Marshall and the rest of the boys came up with the best thing possible at the time, and I don't think anyone has ever come with anything remotely as good since. Even with really severe problems they tried to paper over and ignore.
 
.......... She gave consent when ..............

kinda like a slave gives 'consent' to a life of servitude when they slide down momma's birth canal, eh.


She has no 'right' to bother the Property or Persons of others no matter how large a gaggle of BHO voters she hangs with and neither do those others have a right to impose upon her.
 
Last edited:
Sure, that's how it happens. But I notice you don't have an answer for the nullification question, which is where the real teeth are.


There is no nullification question. Read Article 6 of the Constitution. Nullification is expressly prohibited.

Could you quote the relevant article and section for me?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 
I didn't sign the Constitution. I wasn't even alive when it was made. Why should I follow it or even care? You can't sign a contract on behalf of another person without their consent.

This question from the OP does at least deserve to be pondered. Perhaps Citizenship should NOT be assumed simply because of place of birth. Perhaps a fully informed adult signing of a binding covenant should be required of everyone desiring to take part in decision making by the body politic. Those not wanting to sign the Constitution contract could remain as resident non-citizens as long as they kept their nose clean and paid cash on the barrelhead for any State services provided.

Or perhaps the OP should realize that the Constitution isn't a contract she's bound to "without her consent". She gave consent when she chose to remain in this country and benefit from the way of life given us by our Constitution. Any time she does not wish to be party to it, she can pick up and leave, no harm, no foul. In fact, I doubt anyone would give a damn.

And depending on the passion and determination to nullify or disregard the Constitution involved, some might offer to donate a one way ticket. :)
 
Following that logic why should we follow the "220 years of progress and history," as your article puts it? Lysander Spooner put forth a similar argument, saying that the Constitution has no force over those who had nothing to do with its inception, but his stance was consistent as he was an anarchist. This article simply puts forth this argument to attack the founders, while not applying the same standard to the rest of American history. If we shouldn't follow the Constitution because we weren't alive when it was written, what laws from the FDR administration can we ignore? And how much beloved Supreme Court precedent is now out the window since it can't obviously have any force on those of us who had nothing to do with it? And should we simply craft a new form of government all together, since we had no say in the creation of our current republic?

As for the Constitution being a document we "follow today more closely than the bible," that's obviously a ridiculous argument. Our government, which is mandated to follow the Constitution, barely follows the Constitution at all, whereas following the bible is a personal choice of each individual.

:cuckoo:
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true

We can patiently wait for repeal. We can voice our discontent, and we can vote out the Village Idiots. Courts do reverse rulings.
 
..................And where do your voting rights come from?


Voting is a largely pointless exercise of hoping your side manages to steal more than it is stolen from.

I understand the sentiment. My point is that there is nothing in the Constitution that allows YOU, me, or anyone else to vote. You 'right' to vote comes from the States.

And please don't quote the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th Amendments. They were Amendments directed AT the States ratified BY the States.

There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).

And that denial comes from the STATES.
 
There is no nullification question. Read Article 6 of the Constitution. Nullification is expressly prohibited.

Could you quote the relevant article and section for me?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Which, of course, takes us back in a circle, because you missed the part that says "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." The laws must be made in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for them to be supreme over the states, therefore leaving a "loophole" for the states to nullify federal law not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly forbid state nullification.
 

Forum List

Back
Top