Founding Fathers

[vernard]

The next time I hear someone say how horrrible it is that some change in the Constitution is an attrocity to liberty because "its not as the Founding Fathers envisioned", I'm going to remind them that the "Founding Fathers" didn't think that Slavery was sufficiently bothersome for them to ban it from the Constitution. They even made some provisions that said it was perfectly legitimate. So much for the wonderful wisdom of the "Founding Fathers".

You don't have to like all the changes that have been going on. But try to understand the problem itself and the intricacies involved instead of just going with whatever the "Founding Fathers" decided must have been right. They were people just like the rest of us with their own agendas to push. I'm not saying they were necessarily wrong in all their beliefs. I'm sure that many of them believe they were acting in the best interest of everyone.

The most dangerous types of leaders always do.

Comments

[arasirsul.livejournal.com]

That all said, it should stand to remind us that the Constitution is not a perfect document-- but it's better than whatever it is we're using nowadays...

-JDF

[sirinek.livejournal.com]

Its a TUMOR! ;)

[st-darwin.livejournal.com]

It's naht a tumah - it's a Green hilt.

In a similar vein, Nodwick is good stuff.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There was actually a lot of argument over slavery in the discussions around the drafting of the Constitution. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted it prohibited, but the final consensus was that a Constitution which outlawed slavery would not, and could not, gain enough popular support to be ratified at that time. Any ideal, no matter how noble, must sometimes accede to political realities if it ever wishes to become more than an unrealized ideal.

In this matter, as in many others, the Constitution was in the end a compromise. The Founders realized that it was better to have a compromise that could be enacted and ratified, than a perfect document over which the argument and debate would continue without end while the fledgling United States fell apart.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, personally, in my opinion the greatest error of the Founders was to underestimate the mendacity and imperial ambitions of those who would come after them. It turns out this was something they worried about too -- whether, in the interest of liberty, they'd allowed too much latitude for their future successors to tear down what they had built.

Huh?

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

As Phil points out, slavery was a major sticking point in the Constitutional Convention, it was the anti-slavery forces that didn't want slaves to count towards representation in Congress, leading to the 3/5ths compromise.

As for the main argument, the Framers of the Constitution KNEW that the Constitution, as written, couldn't handle every issue that would come up in the future, so they included a mechanism by which it could be updated, but they made that mechanism so cumbersome that it could only be used if a sufficiently large majority agreed to do so, to avoid changes for frivolous reasons. As Phil also points out, they didn't properly appreciate how abusive those who followed them could be, one of the prime areas of abuse being judges making decisions based on personal bias instead of law. Such as the 'reasoning' that, since citizens could carry arms, travel without permits, and associate with whom they wished, and the powers that be (at least on the Court) didn't want to allow these rights to blacks, obviously blacks could not be citizens...

Re: Huh?

[st-darwin.livejournal.com]

As written, the Constitution doesn't allow the Judicial branch to invalidate laws passed by the Legislative and signed by the Executive. The Supreme Court claimed that right for itself in Marbury v. Madison, and it has generally been agreed that the system makes more sense that way.

I think the Founders were well acquainted with arbitrary lawmaking - note the constitutional prohibitions against Ex Post Facto laws and Bills of Attainder. A lack of respect for the rule of law is nothing new - I'll cite the Trail of Tears as an example closer to the founding of the country.

The US system is designed to be cumbersome in several ways, not just in the amendment process. As things have sped up, and as power has become more concentrated in the Presidency, the consequences of error have become greater. Is it what the Founders intended? No. Is it something we need, in the modern age? Maybe yes, maybe no.

IMHO, the main problem facing this country (other than apathy, and who cares about that?) is that we're increasingly faced with different sets of facts, not just different opinions on what to do about a situation.

[webwench.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way when people start taking about the good old days, and how people were more polite in the fifties, or how morality was so much better developed in the early 1900s and before. I'm like, o rly? You mean when black people had their very own water faucets and bus seats, and there was no hormonal birth control, and we had back-alley abortions, and when discrimination in hiring and in college acceptances were not only okay, but expected and encouraged, and wifebeating and child abuse were 'private family matters'? Or earlier, when lynchings were a fun town event, and people yearned for the days of slavery, and only white guys could vote? Those good old days?

[st-darwin.livejournal.com]

"It's what the Founding Fathers" intended is an appeal to authority intended to derail debate. Constitutional originalism, like other fundamentalisms, is very particular about what text it takes literally. Thought-stopping can be a cultish technique to prevent cognitive dissonance, and there are a lot of techniques to avoid actually thinking about issues.

The perfection of the founding fathers is a national myth that we embrace, while ignoring their internal (often major) disagreements and *cough*SallyHemings*cough* imperfections.

Standing on the shoulders who have gone before us, we can see farther and move closer to our ideals of what things should be. Alternatively, we can fall off those shoulders and lose our way.

[vernard.livejournal.com]

This is exactly what I meant to say but did so badly.

Well said :-)