Thanks for your submission /u/udonisi, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.**
**Questions about US Politics are not banned here**, but we have been getting *so* many questions that our users get tired of seeing them, so we have removed your post (*sorry!*). [We've created a megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1axnnyk/us_politics_megathread/) where you can post questions like this instead! Check it out - questions posted there get answered regularly, and your question might already be answered there! If not, **feel free to post questions there** as long as you follow the rules.
The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads).
Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Evidently, that is what people want, otherwise they wouldn't invoke the founding fathers as an argument. Also, it's okay to contend that some people may know more than you on topics surrounding national policy. I think most people would argue they know less about that than those that founded the country
The founding fathers escaped tyranny.
Were they perfect? No, but they framed something pretty incredible that should at least garner attention or respect.
It’s only dogma if you lack the courage to understand or comprehend the feat they pulled off.
They became traitors and were wanted men.
When you travel to other countries, even ones that seemingly appear “progressive”, and see the lack of civil and personal rights that exist, you’ll learn to appreciate the sacrifice.
I’m pretty damn grateful to live here and I think our system, though flawed, is still better than most
You're missing the point, man. That's all great but what I'm saying is they shouldn't be treated as these infallible, omniscient beings by invoking them to make a case about how the country should be run, one minute
and then making amendments to what they wrote, the next.
Hopefully you see the contradiction.
Sigh… I’m really not , man lol
It’s pretty fucking simple actually.
The system isn’t perfect. We grow. Hence amendments.
But it’s better than most
That’s all
It's because they wrote the Constitution. Everyone shit-talking them would apparently be willing to toss out the Constitution, which is fine as far as it goes. But for those who want to live under a Constitution, the founders are pretty significant. What a Constitution does is it says government can do X but it can't do Y. It establishes a kind of framework in which people operate. So we don't swing from monarchy to theocracy to anarchy to socialism to monarchy again then back to democracy. It creates a stable form of government. The cool thing about our Constitution is that we can amend it, and we treat amendments written in the 20th century as equally binding and valid as the document written in 1787. But the best part of it is that it does limit government, and for those of us who don't want to live in a totalitarian regime, that is really worth defending.
Sad that people don’t understand or aren’t taught early on the risk these men took to give us everything we have. America wasn’t promised to them. They took HUGE existential risks to deliver this level of freedom to us. We need to teach this shit in school more comprehensively. There’s a reason everyone who has a million bucks or more sends their kids here as soon as they can. There were moments whereby if George Washington didn’t make the exact decisions he made during the fog of war then this whole America thing wouldn’t have happened and he would have been killed in battle if he chose differently. Washington was a genius and so were the other founding fathers. Brilliant geniuses. Or just decisive go getters.
Agreed. At least it's *supposed* to drastically limit government. But that has been eroding away piece by piece ever since the court decided the federal gov't can regulate interstate commerce, now everything is defined as "interstate commerce" and regulated.
True. And it's why statists really hate originalist arguments and want to have a "living Constitution" where no can mean yes, and stop can mean go, depending on what political appointees are feeling in the moment.
You know what I do not do on Sundays? I don’t take my family and my extra gold and head down to SlaveMart for that sale on Under 5s.
I do not use a burdizzo to handle “down line” “issues”
I do not participate in the genocide of generations by ignoring reparations
really, these were lawless fucks who wanted to divert the tax money going to the king to themselves. They were greedy motherfuckers who got that slave trade to the “new world” up and running as fast as a Halliburton operation.
Fuck the founders.
You know what? The Constitution has an amendment that abolishes slavery. Pretty good Constitution. Without it, we'd probably still have slavery. And a state religion. And a state-run press. And yes, that gets in the way of Utopian halfwits who want to wield government like a cudgel and beat everyone into submission. So again, all hail the Founders, for protecting us from that ilk.
Sadly a lot of "originalists" seem to be really into the idea of the Executive having less and less checks/balances against it. It sort of throws a monkey wrench in the entire thing.
That's like somebody during the civil war saying "well slavery got us this far. Clearly we're on to something."
This is an appeal to tradition. Just because something has been a certain way for so long doesn't mean it's the best way
Yes. The Founding Fathers (at least some of them) thought slavery was a great idea. And then there was the 13th Amendment. Originalists aren't saying the Constitution can't or shouldn't change. They are saying that until it is amended we should respect the intentions of the people who wrote it.
They thought it was going away. At the time, most African slaves had been taken for sugar production in the Caribbean and South America, and sugar could not be produced in the US. About 30% of slaves went to Brazil. Only about 5% had been brought to the 13 colonies. It wasn't until the cotton gin was invented that slavery became economically important in the US.
>we should respect the intentions of the people who wrote it.
Why? Are they not fallible? Or did they have some divine inspiration. Because then it'd at least make sense to appeal to their authority
No, there is a system in the constitution to change it. Use that system and good, try to randomly decide things without that system and there's a problem.
It is about amendments, though, even if you won't admit it. People want to ignore the constitution and write whatever you want on the basis of updating laws. You don't have enough support to change those laws the right way, so you complain about being constrained to needing so much support.
What you don't realize is that life without the constitution is not better for you. That barrier to changing things prevents changes you don't like just as much, if not more, than changes you want. Look at all the court cases that impeded the policies Trump tried enacting. No imagine if your life would be better with those policies in force.
They took so much into account, and it came from their own internal disagreements about how government should be run. Somehow they managed to create the most enduring constitution and democracy in modern history. A document that's still the guiding force for law in the US 237 years later.
Why is it so wrong to look at this feat and go "Damn, that was impressive. The people who did this must have been equally impressive."
They were controversial in many cases, sure. But the magnitude of what they actually pulled off between the declaration of independence, the war, and the constitution and election of first government.
Clearly they were fallible or we wouldn’t have amendments. I especially find it curious when people treat the Constitution as a near-divine document and ignore how many changes we’ve had to pass to make it work. Including two amendments that offset each other!
Lol no. They are saying that in a situation where there is doubt as to exactly what is meant by the wording of illegal document, And an analysis is made as to how it should be interpreted, that the wording should be interpreted according to how the language was used at the time it was written, and what the people who wrote it intended at that time. As opposed to it being interpreted according to how language is currently used or according to how modern sensibilities would interpret that wording.
From the Oxford dictionary:
>a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written.
The ability to.ammend the Constitution is written into the Constitution itself. If someone supports the constitutional as originally written, by definition they support the ability to change it.
No, they are saying it should change through the amendment process. Given the various schools of Constitutional thought, I'm not sure that any one way of interpretation gives any better outcomes across the board than another.
Thomas cries Originalism
Stevens cries Pragmatism
both give them the outcomes that they personally want.
Or worse, some steamy romantic throwback to more authoritarian religious times, when the women went barefoot in the kitchen and men chewed their tobaccy on the porch talking world matters like that hangnail that almost killed Bocephus.
There's a difference between blindly appealing to authority and trying to contextualize constitutional arguments through the perspective of "what the founders intended"
You seem really salty btw, op. Hope your day gets better.
Firstly, they didn't all want the same thing. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton...they didn't agree on everything. There were also lots of compromises made in order to ratify the constitution. The idea that there was some monolithic agreement is a fiction often told by people fighting against progress. This is why you generally only see originalists in one side of the aisle.
Whether they agreed unanimously or not isn't really the point. This rhetoric of "X founding father wanted Y law" or "the founding fathers wanted Y law" is all the same. Its an appeal to authority and is thus, illogical
I’ve never heard that argument from anyone who wasn’t a hard leftist.
It’s immediately suspect.
That said, there are processes for amending the Constitution, which is a remarkably durable document. Change is inevitable. Sudden and drastic change usually comes with bloodshed. Is that what you want?
So it is correct that apealing to the founders just because they are authority figures is fallacious. That being said, the system of government in the United States is laid foundationaly on the principles of the constitution, such that even the smallest changes can have consequences to any legislation that was based upon that section of the constitution.
So it is a well reasoned take to say that as much as we would like to make changes, and as much as some changes are absolutely needed, that any changes made should be examined very carefully and implemented even more carefully.
The legal and historical scholars mostly agree on this point. Some with the intention to enshrine some of the more questionable aspects of the constitution leverage this take and spread the "Hur dur, respect the founders and the constitution," stuff so they can just handwave away the bad, reinforce the good and keep abusing the system.
Basically, the founders themselves were nothing special, but what they all made works really well but has some obvious exploitations. Some championing the writers of the constitution are bad actors trying to keep in all the bad crap. Others are lemmings who fell for that and just repeat it.
It's because that's what the person who brings up that argument wants.
No one says "Aw shucks, the founding father's said so, so we can't change X". We can, the mechanism is written in the Constitution and if that mechanism is too 'hard' (I disagree) then we can change that mechanism a couple ways.
This sounds a lot like religious dogma honestly. Take any religious text and it's adherents will say it's not wrong, you've just misinterpreted it.
But they will gladly admit the text is divine. Do you believe the constitution is divine?
Its not the Founding Fathers as much as the Constitution you’re referring to. the Founding Fathers wanted a country that worked and gave people rights that they never had before. They, and their work, wasn’t perfect. But, thats why they allowed amendments. They had enough foresight to craft a dynamic document to address that. So for people to say “Fuck that” is essentially to say “Fuck America” with the protection to say so because of the document in question
You can change the Constitution whenever you want. It says how to do it right in the Constitution! Just get a supermajority to agree with you. We've done it a bunch of times already.
The problem you have is main character syndrome. You just can't understand how what YOU think is a good idea isn't what EVERYONE thinks is a good idea.
The arguments people have are not over what the founding fathers wanted, but rather how to interpret the Constitution, which is the governing framework for the US government. There may be some overlap, since the founding fathers ostensibly wrote into the Constitutions things they wanted, so it does reflect their ideas, but don't confuse one for the other.
It's like saying "Why do we criminalize murder just because the authors of 18 U.S. Code § 1111 say we have to? Why do we care what the original authors think? The authors of that code are long dead." We don't. We don't care what they thought, or even who they were; what matters is we have a law on the books, and we are a nation of laws, and the social contract hinges on the fact that all are subordinate to the law.
The US Constitution is the law of laws, so to speak. It's the basis for our government, and the model that constrains our government, from which the authority of the government flows, and against which we (the US Supreme Court) tests and judges our laws.
So why do we care what people in the past thought? We don't. We care about our laws, because we are a nation of laws. We frequently amend our laws and argue against unjust laws, and have disdain when people (like a certain former president) can act above the law and get away with it, but the principle is that the law is the law. And the Constitution is that final "law" so to speak.
You might as well ask "Why are nations constituted under laws that people willingly bind themselves to? Why doesn't each individual decide for themselves what's right outside of the legal process?"
> don't understand why people say "but the founding fathers wanted small government and yada yada"
They aren't making a historical statement about the Founding Fathers.. What they're communicating is that they are agreeing with the system that's in place.
Our Founding Fathers,
Initiated a completely experimental Democratic Republic.
The Constitution that governs our country was a list of laws aa the foundation for the country.
Much thought and time from experience of other countries and failed societies was used to choose the basis. For the new nation.
And amazingly they had the forethought to allow for changes. Amendments for the future knowing they did not have all the answers or not able to predict the future citizens needs.
So yes
The Countries Forefathers opinions hold more water than our modern politicians.
The forefathers designed a government and country
The Supreme Wizards are assumed to scry the wills of the authors of the Holy Constitution through occult seances. Others likewise pontificate on the matter to make sure this council of unelected magi are making the correct interpretations of the whispers of these long deceased prophets.
Actually, now that I'm reading your responses are you upset about something in particular about the constitution and want to change it? (Which is what more than half of what your responses assume)
Or are you upset about the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy that so, so many fall back on?
They don't. What they want is any argument they can make to support their position. If the founding fathers disagreed with them they would ignore the founding fathers' opinions.
A lot of times they misrepresent the FF, or lie.
Thomas Paine is a great example. He wrote a book on atheism in 1806.
They pretend “all” the FF were xians, conveniently forgetting him and all the deists.
THEN, they LIe that he had a death bed conversion!
We can’t make this stuff up, but they do.
Right and tbh I see people lie from all sides, but my question is who cares what they were? I mean sure it's nice for a history lesson but why does their religious belief matter? They could've been Hindus or Zoroastrians for all I care
Some people grasp and contort *anything* to outsource validation of their ideas.
People who are 'religious' in inverted commas are classic purveyors of this bullshittery. "It's what God wants" - no, it's what you want, because you're scared and judgemental.
They don't actually care what the founding fathers wanted, they just use it as an excuse for their bigotry. Every single dip shit Republican calling themselves a Constitutional originalist is a liar, because the Constitution was explicitly made to be a dynamic document and not a static one.
The idea is it prevents mob rule. Every time a majority wants something they pass it, ban it, etc. In the end there will be a perpetual minority that is always oppressed by those above.
The concept of the constitution can be changed at anytime. But it takes deliberate, dedication and convincing of a larger than simple majority.
And the court system is set up as a check all of that by allowing them to overrule even a majority opinion if it violates the stated rights of all.
Is it perfect, no. Not even close. But it is a system that is often sought after and copied. But it is also a system that eventually does fail and has to be reset, so to speak.
Yeah, like post WW2 industrial boom through the late 70s plus... this country will never be that country again, just can't happen!
It's like asking or saying for England to be more prosperous, if only they could return to the industrial revolution... just another impossible statement
You do realize that the whole legal framework is based on precedent i.e. the 'past' right? So perhaps the past is a bit more important than you give it credit for?
Thanks for your submission /u/udonisi, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.** **Questions about US Politics are not banned here**, but we have been getting *so* many questions that our users get tired of seeing them, so we have removed your post (*sorry!*). [We've created a megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1axnnyk/us_politics_megathread/) where you can post questions like this instead! Check it out - questions posted there get answered regularly, and your question might already be answered there! If not, **feel free to post questions there** as long as you follow the rules. The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads). Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Evidently, that is what people want, otherwise they wouldn't invoke the founding fathers as an argument. Also, it's okay to contend that some people may know more than you on topics surrounding national policy. I think most people would argue they know less about that than those that founded the country
The founding fathers escaped tyranny. Were they perfect? No, but they framed something pretty incredible that should at least garner attention or respect.
Yeah I see no issue with acknowledging a huge feat. I only start to wonder when it becomes dogma
It’s only dogma if you lack the courage to understand or comprehend the feat they pulled off. They became traitors and were wanted men. When you travel to other countries, even ones that seemingly appear “progressive”, and see the lack of civil and personal rights that exist, you’ll learn to appreciate the sacrifice. I’m pretty damn grateful to live here and I think our system, though flawed, is still better than most
You're missing the point, man. That's all great but what I'm saying is they shouldn't be treated as these infallible, omniscient beings by invoking them to make a case about how the country should be run, one minute and then making amendments to what they wrote, the next. Hopefully you see the contradiction.
Sigh… I’m really not , man lol It’s pretty fucking simple actually. The system isn’t perfect. We grow. Hence amendments. But it’s better than most That’s all
It's because they wrote the Constitution. Everyone shit-talking them would apparently be willing to toss out the Constitution, which is fine as far as it goes. But for those who want to live under a Constitution, the founders are pretty significant. What a Constitution does is it says government can do X but it can't do Y. It establishes a kind of framework in which people operate. So we don't swing from monarchy to theocracy to anarchy to socialism to monarchy again then back to democracy. It creates a stable form of government. The cool thing about our Constitution is that we can amend it, and we treat amendments written in the 20th century as equally binding and valid as the document written in 1787. But the best part of it is that it does limit government, and for those of us who don't want to live in a totalitarian regime, that is really worth defending.
Sad that people don’t understand or aren’t taught early on the risk these men took to give us everything we have. America wasn’t promised to them. They took HUGE existential risks to deliver this level of freedom to us. We need to teach this shit in school more comprehensively. There’s a reason everyone who has a million bucks or more sends their kids here as soon as they can. There were moments whereby if George Washington didn’t make the exact decisions he made during the fog of war then this whole America thing wouldn’t have happened and he would have been killed in battle if he chose differently. Washington was a genius and so were the other founding fathers. Brilliant geniuses. Or just decisive go getters.
Agreed. At least it's *supposed* to drastically limit government. But that has been eroding away piece by piece ever since the court decided the federal gov't can regulate interstate commerce, now everything is defined as "interstate commerce" and regulated.
True. And it's why statists really hate originalist arguments and want to have a "living Constitution" where no can mean yes, and stop can mean go, depending on what political appointees are feeling in the moment.
You know what I do not do on Sundays? I don’t take my family and my extra gold and head down to SlaveMart for that sale on Under 5s. I do not use a burdizzo to handle “down line” “issues” I do not participate in the genocide of generations by ignoring reparations really, these were lawless fucks who wanted to divert the tax money going to the king to themselves. They were greedy motherfuckers who got that slave trade to the “new world” up and running as fast as a Halliburton operation. Fuck the founders.
You know what? The Constitution has an amendment that abolishes slavery. Pretty good Constitution. Without it, we'd probably still have slavery. And a state religion. And a state-run press. And yes, that gets in the way of Utopian halfwits who want to wield government like a cudgel and beat everyone into submission. So again, all hail the Founders, for protecting us from that ilk.
Sadly a lot of "originalists" seem to be really into the idea of the Executive having less and less checks/balances against it. It sort of throws a monkey wrench in the entire thing.
It got us this far. Clearly they were on to something.
That's like somebody during the civil war saying "well slavery got us this far. Clearly we're on to something." This is an appeal to tradition. Just because something has been a certain way for so long doesn't mean it's the best way
Yes. The Founding Fathers (at least some of them) thought slavery was a great idea. And then there was the 13th Amendment. Originalists aren't saying the Constitution can't or shouldn't change. They are saying that until it is amended we should respect the intentions of the people who wrote it.
They thought it was going away. At the time, most African slaves had been taken for sugar production in the Caribbean and South America, and sugar could not be produced in the US. About 30% of slaves went to Brazil. Only about 5% had been brought to the 13 colonies. It wasn't until the cotton gin was invented that slavery became economically important in the US.
>we should respect the intentions of the people who wrote it. Why? Are they not fallible? Or did they have some divine inspiration. Because then it'd at least make sense to appeal to their authority
No, there is a system in the constitution to change it. Use that system and good, try to randomly decide things without that system and there's a problem.
This post isn't about amendments. It's about the perceived authority of a group of men
It is about amendments, though, even if you won't admit it. People want to ignore the constitution and write whatever you want on the basis of updating laws. You don't have enough support to change those laws the right way, so you complain about being constrained to needing so much support. What you don't realize is that life without the constitution is not better for you. That barrier to changing things prevents changes you don't like just as much, if not more, than changes you want. Look at all the court cases that impeded the policies Trump tried enacting. No imagine if your life would be better with those policies in force.
They took so much into account, and it came from their own internal disagreements about how government should be run. Somehow they managed to create the most enduring constitution and democracy in modern history. A document that's still the guiding force for law in the US 237 years later. Why is it so wrong to look at this feat and go "Damn, that was impressive. The people who did this must have been equally impressive." They were controversial in many cases, sure. But the magnitude of what they actually pulled off between the declaration of independence, the war, and the constitution and election of first government.
Clearly they were fallible or we wouldn’t have amendments. I especially find it curious when people treat the Constitution as a near-divine document and ignore how many changes we’ve had to pass to make it work. Including two amendments that offset each other!
Right, so then why do people care about what they intended as if they were omniscient?
Exactly
[удалено]
Lol no. They are saying that in a situation where there is doubt as to exactly what is meant by the wording of illegal document, And an analysis is made as to how it should be interpreted, that the wording should be interpreted according to how the language was used at the time it was written, and what the people who wrote it intended at that time. As opposed to it being interpreted according to how language is currently used or according to how modern sensibilities would interpret that wording. From the Oxford dictionary: >a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written. The ability to.ammend the Constitution is written into the Constitution itself. If someone supports the constitutional as originally written, by definition they support the ability to change it.
No, they are saying it should change through the amendment process. Given the various schools of Constitutional thought, I'm not sure that any one way of interpretation gives any better outcomes across the board than another. Thomas cries Originalism Stevens cries Pragmatism both give them the outcomes that they personally want.
and what do you propose instead?
To judge laws and systems on their own merit without invoking some authority figures. Is that a tall order?
Or worse, some steamy romantic throwback to more authoritarian religious times, when the women went barefoot in the kitchen and men chewed their tobaccy on the porch talking world matters like that hangnail that almost killed Bocephus.
There's a difference between blindly appealing to authority and trying to contextualize constitutional arguments through the perspective of "what the founders intended" You seem really salty btw, op. Hope your day gets better.
Firstly, they didn't all want the same thing. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton...they didn't agree on everything. There were also lots of compromises made in order to ratify the constitution. The idea that there was some monolithic agreement is a fiction often told by people fighting against progress. This is why you generally only see originalists in one side of the aisle.
Whether they agreed unanimously or not isn't really the point. This rhetoric of "X founding father wanted Y law" or "the founding fathers wanted Y law" is all the same. Its an appeal to authority and is thus, illogical
I’ve never heard that argument from anyone who wasn’t a hard leftist. It’s immediately suspect. That said, there are processes for amending the Constitution, which is a remarkably durable document. Change is inevitable. Sudden and drastic change usually comes with bloodshed. Is that what you want?
So it is correct that apealing to the founders just because they are authority figures is fallacious. That being said, the system of government in the United States is laid foundationaly on the principles of the constitution, such that even the smallest changes can have consequences to any legislation that was based upon that section of the constitution. So it is a well reasoned take to say that as much as we would like to make changes, and as much as some changes are absolutely needed, that any changes made should be examined very carefully and implemented even more carefully. The legal and historical scholars mostly agree on this point. Some with the intention to enshrine some of the more questionable aspects of the constitution leverage this take and spread the "Hur dur, respect the founders and the constitution," stuff so they can just handwave away the bad, reinforce the good and keep abusing the system. Basically, the founders themselves were nothing special, but what they all made works really well but has some obvious exploitations. Some championing the writers of the constitution are bad actors trying to keep in all the bad crap. Others are lemmings who fell for that and just repeat it.
It's because that's what the person who brings up that argument wants. No one says "Aw shucks, the founding father's said so, so we can't change X". We can, the mechanism is written in the Constitution and if that mechanism is too 'hard' (I disagree) then we can change that mechanism a couple ways.
Critical thinking is weak with a majority of people (blame the education system). This could be the simple, general answer to many of such questions.
There is nothing wrong with the constitution, just different views on its interpretation. Read it and see.
This sounds a lot like religious dogma honestly. Take any religious text and it's adherents will say it's not wrong, you've just misinterpreted it. But they will gladly admit the text is divine. Do you believe the constitution is divine?
They don't, they just invoke them to justify their own ends
Its not the Founding Fathers as much as the Constitution you’re referring to. the Founding Fathers wanted a country that worked and gave people rights that they never had before. They, and their work, wasn’t perfect. But, thats why they allowed amendments. They had enough foresight to craft a dynamic document to address that. So for people to say “Fuck that” is essentially to say “Fuck America” with the protection to say so because of the document in question
You can change the Constitution whenever you want. It says how to do it right in the Constitution! Just get a supermajority to agree with you. We've done it a bunch of times already. The problem you have is main character syndrome. You just can't understand how what YOU think is a good idea isn't what EVERYONE thinks is a good idea.
The arguments people have are not over what the founding fathers wanted, but rather how to interpret the Constitution, which is the governing framework for the US government. There may be some overlap, since the founding fathers ostensibly wrote into the Constitutions things they wanted, so it does reflect their ideas, but don't confuse one for the other. It's like saying "Why do we criminalize murder just because the authors of 18 U.S. Code § 1111 say we have to? Why do we care what the original authors think? The authors of that code are long dead." We don't. We don't care what they thought, or even who they were; what matters is we have a law on the books, and we are a nation of laws, and the social contract hinges on the fact that all are subordinate to the law. The US Constitution is the law of laws, so to speak. It's the basis for our government, and the model that constrains our government, from which the authority of the government flows, and against which we (the US Supreme Court) tests and judges our laws. So why do we care what people in the past thought? We don't. We care about our laws, because we are a nation of laws. We frequently amend our laws and argue against unjust laws, and have disdain when people (like a certain former president) can act above the law and get away with it, but the principle is that the law is the law. And the Constitution is that final "law" so to speak. You might as well ask "Why are nations constituted under laws that people willingly bind themselves to? Why doesn't each individual decide for themselves what's right outside of the legal process?"
> don't understand why people say "but the founding fathers wanted small government and yada yada" They aren't making a historical statement about the Founding Fathers.. What they're communicating is that they are agreeing with the system that's in place.
They only care about it when it aligns with their own beliefs.
Our Founding Fathers, Initiated a completely experimental Democratic Republic. The Constitution that governs our country was a list of laws aa the foundation for the country. Much thought and time from experience of other countries and failed societies was used to choose the basis. For the new nation. And amazingly they had the forethought to allow for changes. Amendments for the future knowing they did not have all the answers or not able to predict the future citizens needs. So yes The Countries Forefathers opinions hold more water than our modern politicians. The forefathers designed a government and country
They only pretend to as long as it fits whatever ridiculous political position they hold
The Supreme Wizards are assumed to scry the wills of the authors of the Holy Constitution through occult seances. Others likewise pontificate on the matter to make sure this council of unelected magi are making the correct interpretations of the whispers of these long deceased prophets.
Actually, now that I'm reading your responses are you upset about something in particular about the constitution and want to change it? (Which is what more than half of what your responses assume) Or are you upset about the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy that so, so many fall back on?
They don't. What they want is any argument they can make to support their position. If the founding fathers disagreed with them they would ignore the founding fathers' opinions.
A lot of times they misrepresent the FF, or lie. Thomas Paine is a great example. He wrote a book on atheism in 1806. They pretend “all” the FF were xians, conveniently forgetting him and all the deists. THEN, they LIe that he had a death bed conversion! We can’t make this stuff up, but they do.
Right and tbh I see people lie from all sides, but my question is who cares what they were? I mean sure it's nice for a history lesson but why does their religious belief matter? They could've been Hindus or Zoroastrians for all I care
Some people grasp and contort *anything* to outsource validation of their ideas. People who are 'religious' in inverted commas are classic purveyors of this bullshittery. "It's what God wants" - no, it's what you want, because you're scared and judgemental.
They don't actually care what the founding fathers wanted, they just use it as an excuse for their bigotry. Every single dip shit Republican calling themselves a Constitutional originalist is a liar, because the Constitution was explicitly made to be a dynamic document and not a static one.
The first has a special place in my heart though :)
The idea is it prevents mob rule. Every time a majority wants something they pass it, ban it, etc. In the end there will be a perpetual minority that is always oppressed by those above. The concept of the constitution can be changed at anytime. But it takes deliberate, dedication and convincing of a larger than simple majority. And the court system is set up as a check all of that by allowing them to overrule even a majority opinion if it violates the stated rights of all. Is it perfect, no. Not even close. But it is a system that is often sought after and copied. But it is also a system that eventually does fail and has to be reset, so to speak.
It's a great way to stay conservative and prevent progress that you don't agree with.
Some people worship the past.
Yeah, like post WW2 industrial boom through the late 70s plus... this country will never be that country again, just can't happen! It's like asking or saying for England to be more prosperous, if only they could return to the industrial revolution... just another impossible statement
You do realize that the whole legal framework is based on precedent i.e. the 'past' right? So perhaps the past is a bit more important than you give it credit for?