I’m really getting tired of reading columnists who invoke the principles of the Founding Fathers as their touchstone, e.g. Linda Turley-Hansen, Oct. 13, 2012. Just which Founding Father is she referring to — Alexander Hamilton, who thought state governors should be appointed by Congress; James Madison, who didn’t think the Constitution needed a Bill of Rightsl; or Patrick Henry, who said he “smelt a rat” when asked why he declined to attend the Constitutional Convention?
The idea that the Founding Fathers all held the same values and principles is a myth, and it needs to be discarded. They were not demigods. They were ordinary men doing the best they could to put together a working government, and they freely admitted they didn’t always get it right.
If there was anything they had in common, it was that they knew that had to make compromises, something that seems to be in short supply today.
Gregory Wilmoth
Gilbert
Engaged Voter posted at 1:36 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.
"remember 80% of Americans say they are religous"
And this proves what, exactly? Remember, at one time over 80% of the people on the whole planet thought the earth was flat (you know, like the Bible claims it is).
It really doesn't matter whether or not one person or 5 billion people believe in Bronze Age mythology with no evidence to back it. A foolish claim is a foolish claim regardless of the number of adherents it has.
"It will take you only a few key strokes to verify that and put a crater in your belief that the founders were generally God fearing men."
Of course, because "God fearing men" usually refer to Christianity as mythology (like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did).
DARN THOSE PESKY FACTS! LOL
JNelson posted at 4:53 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Accuracy.....your comments on the Constitution as a "living" document are well taken. What has happened is, liberals and others not in admiration of the Constitution interpret the "living" part of it as giving permission to change the meaning of it AS IT EXISTS, when the true meaning is that it is NOT written in stone because of the built-in methods of changing it. But liberals don't want to go through that process anymore. The 2nd Amendment is one prime example. Their view seems to be that strict gun control is absolutely necessary in order to make an orderly and less violent society, but they stay completely away from attempting to get their point enacted into law by changing the Constitution. Instead they prefer to circumvent it and hope federal judges and the Supreme Court will agree when cases come before them. Not exactly an ethical means of operation, IMHO.
VofReason posted at 1:22 pm on Wed, Oct 31, 2012.
Seems pretty confident for someone who exists in the minority of people who don't believe in God- remember 80% of Americans say they are religous. So tell me, how did life begin? Or do you believe the more recent fairy tale of lightening hitting a puddle and yada yada here we are. That really takes a leap of faith, pun firmly intended. And the Constitution was firmly based on Natural Law. It will take you only a few key strokes to verify that and put a crater in your belief that the founders were generally God fearing men.
Engaged Voter posted at 1:04 pm on Wed, Oct 31, 2012.
"Constitutional law is based on the principle of Natural Law which is anything but secular."
The Universe is secular - deal with it.
Unless, that is, you have some evidence that it is not?
(actual evidence, not Bronze Age fairytales)
Accuracy posted at 6:03 pm on Tue, Oct 30, 2012.
Cerulean……….
Good point about ‘The Oath’ book by Jeffery Toobin.
By-the-way, in the volume, senior legal analyst at CNN, Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations on the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) law. Toobin’s book involved he claimed, Chief Justice Roberts apparently moved from an alliance with the conservatives, and “laid down a marker on the scope of the commerce clause” that may augur a “return to the pre-1937 days when the Court invalidated economic regulations with regularity.”
Put another way, it is a battle between old ways and current ways. The old ways, scholars say judges should interpret the Constitution as our founding fathers intended. Currently, Liberals say that the Constitution changes and evolves.
Arizona Willie posted at 3:34 pm on Tue, Oct 30, 2012.
I see Leon is overdue for his brain enema.
With his head that full of ca-ca it's no wonder he has such a shitty outlook.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 3:09 pm on Tue, Oct 30, 2012.
Democrats are the ones who won't compromise. Just look at their....MESSIAH....telling Congress that without more taxes on .....WORKING AMERICANS.....he won't even sit down with the Republicans.
Just look at how America became the World's Largest Welfare State = 47% of Non-Working and never gonna work, Americans....living off the 53% that do.
Unemployment Insurance was supposed to be a "stop-gap", short time Assistance Program = under Obama.....Unemployment is ...........NEVER ENDING = IT HAS BECOME THE NEW .....SOCIAL SECURITY.
FREE BREAKFASTS AND LUNCHES FOR 18YO AND UNDER EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR NOW...NOT JUST WHEN SCHOOL IS IN SESSION.....MESA'S SCHOOL DISTRICT DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER CHECKING IF THEY ARE ...ILLEGAL ALIENS ....OR NOT.
WELFARE, ACCHESS, FOOD STAMP (FAMILY OF 4 GETS THEM UNLESS THE THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME HIT $40,000.00 = WHICH MEANS ....MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS MORE THAN WERE ENVISIONED WHEN THE PROGRAM FIRST BEGAN...AGAIN AS A "STOP-GAP", TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM = NOW IT'S CRADLE TO GRAVE FOOD STAMPS FOR LIFE.
SECTION-8 CUTS THE RENT TO 25%...HUD TAKES CARE OF THE UTILITY BILLS FOR THESE DEADBEATS....AGAIN....CRADLE TO GRAVE.
YOU WONDER WHY MILLIONS HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR JOBS = WELL, WHY....."W.O.R.K."..........WHEN UNCLE SAM, WITH THE TAXES FROM 53% (AND 99% OF THEM ARE REPUBLICANS) OF HARD-WORKING AMERICANS, WILL JUST ..........DOLE OUT TRILLIONS TO THE "HARDLY, IF EVER" WORKING DEMOCRATS, SOCIALISTS, LIBERALS AND YOUR "OBAMA INSPIRED"...OCCUPY WALL STREET FREAKS.
DonMey posted at 7:35 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2012.
They didn't agree on everything, but they did agree on the Constitution, and what you had to do to change it if you didn't like it.
truth posted at 2:49 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
Gay marriage: President George H. W. Bush declared for the first time that homosexuals have been diecriminated against as a "quasi-suspect class," making it necessary to subject any law concerning them to "heightend scrutiny." Thats the same legal language used to protect women and racial minorities from discriminatory laws. "this is a key legal breakthrough," and could serve as a basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide federal recognition of all state-sanctioned, same-sex marriages. It's even posible that in the up comming term, the high court will rule that Americans "have a right to same-sex marriage in every state." WashingtonPost.com
It's now clear that opponents of gay marriage have no legal arguments for what is essentially a religious position, As for Justice Kennedy, "opinions often suggest that he wants to be on the right side of history." With polls showing more than 50% of Americans now in favor of gay marriages, Kennedy may well join the four liberals in a historic opinion that gives gay rights "it's Brown V/S Board of Education." The New York Times
In my opinion, on gay marriage, the only legal aspect is contract law, nothing more. The religious aspect is only ceremonial. For the U.S. Supreme Court to vote against gay marriage would open the gate to discrimination.
Engaged Voter posted at 2:23 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
"They were not demigods."
And many of them didn't believe in any gods at all.
Just pointing this out for Accuracy's sake. (pun intended).
Cerulean posted at 2:03 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
Accuracy, I do not know who you are trying to fool.
Your post reminded me of a book I read a few weeks ago, ‘The Oath’ by Jeffery Toobin. He concludes his book with this paragraph:
“There was some irony in the conservative embrace of originalism, in the insistence by Scalia and others that the Constitution is “dead” and unchanging. With their success, driven by people, ideas, and money, conservatives proved just how much the Constitution can change, and it did. Obama and his party were the ones who acted like the Constitution remained inert; they hoped the Constitution and the values underlying it would somehow take care of themselves. That has never happened, and it never will. Invariably, inevitably, the Constitution lives.”
Toobin is specifically talking about recent rulings by Robert’s court on gun laws, freedom of speech and the barrier between church and state. All three of these issues deviate from the Constitution and, in the case of speech, the court eliminated 100 years of practiced law.
VofReason posted at 12:55 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
Constitutional law is based on the principle of Natural Law which is anything but secular. "They were ordinary men doing the best they could to put together a working government, and they freely admitted they didn’t always get it right." Interesting contrast. We know that the current President would never freely admit to having done something wrong. Not when it was Bush's fault has worked so well for this long.
Accuracy posted at 10:40 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
“Principles of the Founding Fathers”
The Founding Fathers were advocates of a federal union between the American colonies after the American Revolution in 1775. They were leading figure in the founding of the United States, who created the most free country to have ever existed. Specifically members of the Continental Congress who formally adopted the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776; And the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787 – the supreme law of the land – by the American Constitutional Convention members.
But the key issue today is how judges view the Constitution. Some judges still interpret the Constitution as our "Founding Fathers" intended. While Liberal judges say that the Constitution changes and evolves, and it is a "living document" that judges can interpret as they please.
JNelson posted at 9:49 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
I don't know about others who refer to the "Founding Fathers" for guidance on principles, but when I do, I mean the principles they incorporated into the Constitution. IMO, it would be silly to claim that varying opinions among those men which did NOT make it into the Constitution should be recognized as just as valid to it as those which did. It is just as silly, IMO, to claim that the "Founders", in forging the Constitution, we not inspired by prevailing Christian religious beliefs, even though some among them appear to have been somewhat non-committed. And despite this, the remarkable thing is that none of those beliefs were incorporated into the construction of the new government, leaving it entirely secular.
Bluepoet posted at 9:17 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
Somehow, the definition of compromise has become more aligned with a weakness of character, when it actually means trading something for the greater good, or being practical, when met with something time sensitive.
I, too, note the invoking of the "Founding Fathers", to be a nice, fuzzy way of saying that some sort of "Vulcan mind meld" happened, while the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being hammered out. It's a great and wonderful framework, but it was made by men, who had different views, and very different visions, of what this country should be...using that term to support any interpretation of a specific issue, is, at best, an invalid arguement, especially when describing what the Founding Fathers intended...mind-reading the past, in order to shackle the minds of the present...then, supporting their intentions by quoting letters by some of them.
It's the same logic employed by literalists of religious documents...and, the same flawed reasoning...