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

[Grizz]

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

Liberals are naturally stupid and illiterate. Conservatives believe progress ended 2500 years ago when Aristotle discovered natural law.

If we have made progress beyond Aristotle and Jefferson why did the liberal clean forget to tell us what it is??

Liberal: progress is magical soviet regulators and crippling welfare, obviously!!

lol, natural law says that if you're stronger than your neighbor you're entitled to kill him and take everything he owns.

Yikes, you better hope not....you are as weak as it gets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

Liberals are naturally stupid and illiterate. Conservatives believe progress ended 2500 years ago when Aristotle discovered natural law.

If we have made progress beyond Aristotle and Jefferson why did the liberal clean forget to tell us what it is??

Liberal: progress is magical soviet regulators and crippling welfare, obviously!!

lol, natural law says that if you're stronger than your neighbor you're entitled to kill him and take everything he owns.

Yikes, you better hope not....you are as weak as it gets.

You are cordially invited to come to my house and try to kill me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Grizz is a coward, not to worry.

 

[danielpalos]

The federal left knows what our Founding Fathers wrote in the federal doctrine because we subscribe to it.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

WOW! Is it possible to be more wrong, and demonstrate more ignorance, in only 11 words???

I don't think so ... you may have achieved perfection.

Cardinal sin right there! Mentioning FakeSmarmy and "perfection" in the same paragraph is a gross violation of natural law.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

The entire point of the Constitution is that it is not set in stone. Today We the People through our SCOTUS decide, not the Founders.

What? When is the last time "We the People" has had any influence on a SCOTUS decision? They are there to take that influence out of the laws, and to ensure those laws comply with the words of our founders.

Wow.

The only way COTUS should be interpreted is with scrupulous adherence to original intent. The only way that intent should be modified is by amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ernie S. is a silly who does not understand the Constitution and its role in our modernizing society. He's a goof, that is all.

 

[Ernie S.]

I understand far better than the USMB #1 irrelevant asshole.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I understand far better that the USMB #1 irrelevant asshole" is Ernie S. followed closely by Yurt. They are a double asshole.

The founding fathers would have put them to work in the cotton fields to make an honest living.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

Liberals are naturally stupid and illiterate. Conservatives believe progress ended 2500 years ago when Aristotle discovered natural law.

If we have made progress beyond Aristotle and Jefferson why did the liberal clean forget to tell us what it is??

Liberal: progress is magical soviet regulators and crippling welfare, obviously!!

lol, natural law says that if you're stronger than your neighbor you're entitled to kill him and take everything he owns.

Yikes, you better hope not....you are as weak as it gets.

You are cordially invited to come to my house and try to kill me.

If we have made progress beyond Aristotle and Jefferson why did the liberal clean forget to tell us what it is??

the liberal cant tell us put since he has no allegiance whatsoever to reason his pure ignorance does not matter to him one tiny bit. The liberal allegiance is only to violence.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only way COTUS should be interpreted is with scrupulous adherence to original intent.

that's what the oath of office requires!! Liberals treasonously lie when they take the oath and so assume office as subversives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If America followed the economic theories of Edward Baiamonte, poverty in the world would increase by 10% in less than one year.

 

[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.

Am I in a time machine or sumptin?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Thanks for admitting that you're a commie who wants to fundamentally transform this country.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

It's just a fallacious appeal to authority that especially conservatives like to use when it suits their agenda.

It can be used as an Appeal to Authority.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the person is speaking outside their area of expertise. Therefore, it is not a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on the Constitution. But it would be a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on microwave ovens were he alive today.

"James Madison says Kenmore is better than Westinghouse. So there!"

Wrong. It's always a fallacy. Even the most credentialed authority to be dead wrong.

 

[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?

Thanks for admitting that you're a commie who wants to fundamentally transform this country.

Gotta give this person credit for their handle though. He has to put Hindu in it to make it politically correct.

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

Liberals are naturally stupid and illiterate. Conservatives believe progress ended 2500 years ago when Aristotle discovered natural law.

If we have made progress beyond Aristotle and Jefferson why did the liberal clean forget to tell us what it is??

Liberal: progress is magical soviet regulators and crippling welfare, obviously!!

lol, natural law says that if you're stronger than your neighbor you're entitled to kill him and take everything he owns.

Nope. Natural law says man is a social animal and he has to have rules so he can live in peace with his community.

 

[Likkmee]

I "founded" a jewelry store last night. What an awesome "find".

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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?

Because HUMAN NATURE NEVER CHANGES.

The Founders set up SAFEGUARDS to protect us from greedy politicians who crave power OVER THE CITIZENS.

The Founder's "laws" (the Constitution) codified the citizens PROTECTIONS FROM AN ALL POWERFUL POLICE STATE

 

[DustyInfinity]

Because they wrote the Constitution for a reason. England, our legal ancestors, kept their constitution unwritten and changed it often. That practice permits a great many abuses which the founding generation wished to thwart.
Thus, writing down a constitution inhibits some of those dangers.

CNN told this kid that the constitution sucks. Fabulous. Great response Teddy.