The U.S. Constitution

[Foxfyre]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

 

[Foxfyre]

A gentle reminder that this thread is in the CDZ, and a reminder that we must respect the honest opinions of others if we are to have a productive discussion about what the Constitution is and how we should proceed under its authority.

 

[Dissent]

I doubt 90% people here know or care what happened today 225 years ago....I say the Constitution was a great thing but it has become just another piece of paper to be ignored by every politician except for a hand full. I wish parts of it like the 2nd amendment had been more clear in its intentions. I also wish the people would realize we have been duped into thinking we are still free if they realized the situation we are in we would have revolted 100 years ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dissent, I agree that most Americans living today have never been schooled in the original intent of the Constitution. Probably most have had minimal schooingl about what it even says, and too many teachers now teach what they hope or wish the Constitution says rather than it's core meanings. I too wish that the Founders had been more specific in the document itself, but I can understand how they never in their wildest dreams could have imagined a society such as exists in 2012, or an American society that would reject the values they took for granted as a given.

 

[Swagger]

It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

With all due respect, it did no such thing. Its inception provided a societal contract designed to guide those left in the immediate wake of the successful separation from the British Empire. The events between its ratification and today are what has made America most, if not all, of the qualities you've listed.

It's performed remarkably well as a template for a fledgling nation in a relatively unsettled territory, given the circumstances surrounding its final draft.

 

[Foxfyre]

It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

With all due respect, it did no such thing. Its inception provided a societal contract designed to guide those left in the immediate wake of the successful separation from the British Empire. The events between its ratification and today are what has made America most, if not all, of the qualities you've listed.

It's performed remarkably well as a template for a fledgling nation in a relatively unsettled territory, given the circumstances surrounding its final draft.

Yes, I worded that badly. I should have said that it ALLOWED the most free, most prosperous, (etc.) nation the world has ever known. The government did not achieve that. The people, unhindered by an authoritarian government, achieved it all. It was the new and previously untried concept of a people who governed themselves who did it.

 

[Swagger]

It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

With all due respect, it did no such thing. Its inception provided a societal contract designed to guide those left in the immediate wake of the successful separation from the British Empire. The events between its ratification and today are what has made America most, if not all, of the qualities you've listed.

It's performed remarkably well as a template for a fledgling nation in a relatively unsettled territory, given the circumstances surrounding its final draft.

Yes, I worded that badly. I should have said that it ALLOWED the most free, most prosperous, (etc.) nation the world has ever known. The government did not achieve that. The people, unhindered by an authoritarian government, achieved it all. It was the new and previously untried concept of a people who governed themselves who did it.

The Roman Republic claims all the glory for a people who governed themselves. Although the concept's second run in the New World was devoid of the near-constant bloodshed and upheaval that went with its [people governing themselves] trial run. The 'first' Americans thoroughly refined the concept and made some effort to forecast and deal with any outcomes intiated by fallable people, which is no-doubt why they put it onto paper.

In any case, and having a framed copy of it next to my wife's make-up mirror (much to my occasional chagrin - just teasing), I'm slightly drawn over it all. Most countries in the world have a set of written rules, which is what the U.S. Constitution essentially is. What I believe gives you a certain edge is your Pledge of Allegiance. Reciting it every day from a young age cements near-unconditional solidarity and, in my opinion, is far more a potent weapon than anything you've got in your nuclear arsenal.

 

[regent]

The purpose was to create a more perfect union, More perfect than the Articles of Confederation. That said, the founders created a loose framework to accomodate change over the years. They made a couple of errors, however, one being the failure to set up political parties. That failure has probably resulted in amendments not being added to the constitution when needed, and that in turn has resulted in adminstrations being accused of bending parts of the constitution. When statistics are published showing some of the ignorance of the American people regarding their government (39% could not pass the citizenship test given to immigrants) the framers were probably correct in their caution of creating a democracy, Jefferson believed education would do it, but not so.

 

[Foxfyre]

With all due respect, it did no such thing. Its inception provided a societal contract designed to guide those left in the immediate wake of the successful separation from the British Empire. The events between its ratification and today are what has made America most, if not all, of the qualities you've listed.

It's performed remarkably well as a template for a fledgling nation in a relatively unsettled territory, given the circumstances surrounding its final draft.

Yes, I worded that badly. I should have said that it ALLOWED the most free, most prosperous, (etc.) nation the world has ever known. The government did not achieve that. The people, unhindered by an authoritarian government, achieved it all. It was the new and previously untried concept of a people who governed themselves who did it.

The Roman Republic claims all the glory for a people who governed themselves. Although the concept's second run in the New World was devoid of the near-constant bloodshed and upheaval that went with its [people governing themselves] trial run. The 'first' Americans thoroughly refined the concept and made some effort to forecast and deal with any outcomes intiated by fallable people, which is no-doubt why they put it onto paper.

In any case, and having a framed copy of it next to my wife's make-up mirror (much to my occasional chagrin - just teasing), I'm slightly drawn over it all. Most countries in the world have a set of written rules, which is what the U.S. Constitution essentially is. What I believe gives you a certain edge is your Pledge of Allegiance. Reciting it every day from a young age cements near-unconditional solidarity and, in my opinion, is far more a potent weapon than anything you've got in your nuclear arsenal.

The concept of the U.S. Constitution, however, was different from all other governments the world had known. It respected God-given unalienable rights and was intended to secure them--the Roman government did neither--and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. They were not allowed to make war upon each other with impunity or to take the property--property considered an unalienable right--from another without the other's consent. But within the various states, the people were free to work out their own social contract however they wished to do that, All other nations assign the rights the people will have. The U.S. Constitution does not.

 

[eflatminor]

I wish parts of it...had been more clear in its intentions.

Check out the Federalist Papers. There you'll find the clear intention to have a government limited by specific powers...as well as what "shall not be infringed" means.

 

[Swagger]

The purpose was to create a more perfect union, More perfect than the Articles of Confederation. That said, the founders created a loose framework to accomodate change over the years. They made a couple of errors, however, one being the failure to set up political parties. That failure has probably resulted in amendments not being added to the constitution when needed, and that in turn has resulted in adminstrations being accused of bending parts of the constitution. When statistics are published showing some of the ignorance of the American people regarding their government (39% could not pass the citizenship test given to immigrants) the framers were probably correct in their caution of creating a democracy, Jefferson believed education would do it, but not so.

Why would they set-up political parties in the first place?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wish parts of it...had been more clear in its intentions.

Check out the Federalist Papers. There you'll find the clear intention to have a government limited by specific powers...as well as what "shall not be infringed" means.

The Federalist papers are veryinstructive as are the anti-federalist papers. But you have to go beyond even that to read the letters, the transcripts of speeches, and the myriad and plentiful other sources we have to fully understand the minds and hearts of those remarkable men who forged and signed the U.S. Constitution,.

 

[Foxfyre]

The purpose was to create a more perfect union, More perfect than the Articles of Confederation. That said, the founders created a loose framework to accomodate change over the years. They made a couple of errors, however, one being the failure to set up political parties. That failure has probably resulted in amendments not being added to the constitution when needed, and that in turn has resulted in adminstrations being accused of bending parts of the constitution. When statistics are published showing some of the ignorance of the American people regarding their government (39% could not pass the citizenship test given to immigrants) the framers were probably correct in their caution of creating a democracy, Jefferson believed education would do it, but not so.

Why would they set-up political parties in the first place?

Most of them were not in favor of political parties. Just a few quotations from my personal library:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”-- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796 (Note that this also was on an anniversary of today's date? I've always wondered if he timed it that way on purpose.)

'If I could go to heaven, except with a political party, I would rather not go there at all.'—Thomas Jefferson

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”—John Adams

 

[Foxfyre]

Saw this posted on Facebook and thought it appropriate for this thread, though we on USMB can't 'like' it:

 

[Big Black Dog]

My honest opinion is that the Constitution is a wonderful document and it is still valid today except the President of the United States, members of Congress, and the Supreme Court do not always follow what it says but do as they please.

 

[Foxfyre]

My honest opinion is that the Constitution is a wonderful document and it is still valid today except the President of the United States, members of Congress, and the Supreme Court do not always follow what it says but do as they please.

I believe many modern politicians--those who have been in office in the 20th and 21st centuries--have found the Constitution quite inconvenient for their intentions, and I believe some have intentionally circumvented the letter and/or the original intent of the Constitution. But to make that case convincingly as modern critics, we have to agree on what the original intent actually was; and we have to address the issue of 'fluidity' in the Constitution that allows it to be interpreted according to the way things are now rather than as things were when it was signed and ratified.

 

[freedombecki]

Happy 225th Birthday, We the People!

credits​

 

[regent]

The purpose was to create a more perfect union, More perfect than the Articles of Confederation. That said, the founders created a loose framework to accomodate change over the years. They made a couple of errors, however, one being the failure to set up political parties. That failure has probably resulted in amendments not being added to the constitution when needed, and that in turn has resulted in adminstrations being accused of bending parts of the constitution. When statistics are published showing some of the ignorance of the American people regarding their government (39% could not pass the citizenship test given to immigrants) the framers were probably correct in their caution of creating a democracy, Jefferson believed education would do it, but not so.

Why would they set-up political parties in the first place?

From history, from British political parties and their experience with their own colonies. The framers said they believed that the number of factions in America would cancel each other and so no political group would become strong enough to dominate. The new states would also restrict democracy so they made no arrangements for political parties in the constitution. The irony is that the ratification of the constitution was the beginning of parties. Add to that, the electoral college generally hinders third parties in the US.

 

[Intense]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

Just a Thought, The Constitution, by design, was meant to serve our Needs, when those needs change, there is an Amendment Process to address and adapt to those needs.

 

[JWBooth]

As an anti-federalist my preference is for the Articles of Confederation.