Why do we ask what the founding fathers would have wanted?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, we need to know more about the context in which they were read and understood at the time.

only if you're a conservative do you care about what our genius Founders meant or how they were understood at the time. If you are a liberal you want to be free of Constitutional restraints and, like Hitler Stalin Mao and Captain Kirk, go where no man has ever gone before.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we have a new nominee for Dumbest Thread of the Week!

yes it is very very very dumb but it perfectly expresses the pure ignorance on which liberalism is based just like every other substantive liberal thread. So how can it be dumber than other liberal threads since they are all based on the same pure ignorance?

What I find interesting is that in popular culture and the MSM liberalism is taken for granted as obvious but here and where ever else thinking is require liberals are shocked to find that in reality they have been very skillfully brainwashed and cant defend themselves in any way.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Faithful, non-protestant, and non-renegades to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers know they did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

It is the most non-ambiguous and most Concise document ever left to a Posterity; except to the clueless and the Causeless Right.

We don't even need to ask what our Founding Fathers wanted simply because they Told us what to do in the federal doctrine and spake it so in Article the Sixth.

 

[dblack]

So it is spaken.

 

[dblack]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

 

[kaz]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

You don't grasp the point correctly. The question isn't what they would have wanted, the question is what they said. They wrote the Constitution, so other than amendments, that is the measuring stick for our laws

 

[kaz]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

That wouldn't be fair. danny is Canadian, and it's not right to beat up on crazy people

 

[Davros]

Why should we care what the founders thought?

because they where extreme geniuses who understood that govt had been the source of evil in human history and that any new govt must be keep very very limited to be in harmony with nature's God.

You need to learn the rules spelling, capitalization, and grammar.

 

[kaz]

Why should we care what the founders thought?

because they where extreme geniuses who understood that govt had been the source of evil in human history and that any new govt must be keep very very limited to be in harmony with nature's God.

You need to learn the rules spelling, capitalization, and grammar.

Ironic you say that with a grammatically incorrect sentence...

 

[Darkwind]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

Look at it this way...

A group of people decide to build a small little community where they can raise their families and enjoy those things that life has to offer them....

So they build their homes in a quiet little back water and begin their lives....Each person who comes along sees that they have a good thing going on and decide they too want a piece of that. They're told that we like to keep the neighborhood quiet and respect each others privacy and rights. We think that you can raise your kids the way you like as long as they are respectful. And as long as you consider this a good thing, then by all means...come join us...

They have built their house to be nurturing and loving and full of values...

Some years later, along comes someone who says, "Who the fuck cares what the original settlers wanted. I want to have skank ho's and parties up in this shit.....and so thats what they do...

Next thing you know....their fucking hos are fornicating in the streets and enticing children to join in, ignore past values, and to destroy what has been built......all in the name of their own personal brand of entropy....

They teach their neighbor's kids to fornicate without thought....to disregard their privacy...and to demand that they conform to them.....

Yeah...why bother with wanting to know what the vision of the founders was all about...

 

[danielpalos]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

That wouldn't be fair. danny is Canadian, and it's not right to beat up on crazy people

i don't care what you say; you are too chicken to make an appointment for full body massage.

 

[kaz]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

That wouldn't be fair. danny is Canadian, and it's not right to beat up on crazy people

i don't care what you say; you are too chicken to make an appointment for full body massage.

Why do chickens need massages? Are their feathers ruffled?

 

[danielpalos]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

That wouldn't be fair. danny is Canadian, and it's not right to beat up on crazy people

i don't care what you say; you are too chicken to make an appointment for full body massage.

Why do chickens need massages? Are their feathers ruffled?

probably, to divert from their lack of any soundness of reasoning.

 

[kaz]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

That wouldn't be fair. danny is Canadian, and it's not right to beat up on crazy people

i don't care what you say; you are too chicken to make an appointment for full body massage.

Why do chickens need massages? Are their feathers ruffled?

probably, to divert from their lack of any soundness of reasoning.

so you don't think a shortcoming in sound reasoning is an issue you have?

 

[danielpalos]

I propose a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death, word-off between danielpalos and EdwardBaiamonte
Are you read to rumble?

That wouldn't be fair. danny is Canadian, and it's not right to beat up on crazy people

i don't care what you say; you are too chicken to make an appointment for full body massage.

Why do chickens need massages? Are their feathers ruffled?

probably, to divert from their lack of any soundness of reasoning.

so you don't think a shortcoming in sound reasoning is an issue you have?

it cannot be my problem, silly; i am the one resorting to the fewest fallacies as an ethic and moral in modern times.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

if the founding fathers saw what we have become,they would first puke their guts out and revise the whole damned thing.

They would have been amazed of the tech of our times. who would have known? But if they saw this sorry welfare state they would kick themselves in the teticulars hard and firm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not concerned with what a bunch of slavers and compromisers on slavery said back then.

It is our Constitution today.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

The Framers were very clear as to their intent:

A Constitutional Republic

Citizens subject solely to the rule of law, not men

Citizens' rights safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law

Federal laws and the rulings of the Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions

The Federal courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – determine what the Constitution means and the intent of the Framers, and determine the validity and constitutionality of Federal, state, and local laws and measures

The rights of citizens are paramount, the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to citizens' rights

The rights of citizens are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man

Citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule'

Citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence

Although inalienable, citizens' rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Citizens need only follow Constitutional case law to understand the intent of the Framers and whether given laws and measures comport with Constitutional case law; indeed, much of the litigation over the years could have been easily avoided if the states and local jurisdictions simply followed Constitutional jurisprudence.

Like Dred Scott, for instance? Precedent is fleeting. The Constitution is permanent, or nearly so. If society wants to correct for the short sight of the Framers, there IS a process, slow and difficult as it may be, to add amendments. The framers made it that way on purpose and were quite clear in their intent. One need only look to The Federalist Papers and notes of the Constitutional Convention to ascertain original intent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

Nonsense. Those who authored and ratified the Constitution, and its amendments, decided. The entire point of the a constitution is that it's NOT subject to arbitrary change. It's not a matter of democracy and it's not matter of judicial decree.