"Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves"

[TastesLikeChicken]

We've all seen it posted in here - "Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves." It's a response...a slogan that the left is particularly fond of when they see anything that can be imagined as an assault on the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Is it really true though?

Our great founding fathers never saw fit to give women or blacks the right to vote.

What would their reaction to legalized abortion be?

How about homosexual marriage?

Civil rights?

The Founding Fathers were great visionaries to be sure. What they gave us was a document that was etched in stone and malliable at the same time. They laid down our basic laws and fundamental rights in a way that could be interpreted. And those tenets could be interpreted for all times and still retain their fundamental essense. We all laud them for that.

But our Founding Fathers had different ideas in a different time and applied those fundamental tenets as they saw fit for that age. We are in a different age now and society has changed drastically. We interpret their fundamental tenets far differently then they themselves would have.

Would they be rolling over in their graves today? No doubt. If they saw what we had become as a society today though, using their Constitution. they'd probably have a heart attack. So the left is right...the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. Not for the reasons they might think though. Do I care though? Nope. They were great in their time, and the legacy lives on. But it's another day and age. Time has to move on.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Constitution is quaint. Thank goodness we have people like you to point this out.

The Constitution certainly is malleable enough to make the Bill of Rights say just about anything. All we need are the "right" judges to make this splendid scenario come true.

I don't really care if they have to lie to do it. The ends justify the means. Just look at Iraq.

Thanks for your wisdom.

 

[drinkmorejava]

So who's going to bring up the seperation of church and state.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Constitution is quaint. Thank goodness we have people like you to point this out.

Ex-squeeze me?

Did you really have to sink so low to respond as to put words in my OP that never existed there? I didn't even imply that the constitution is "quaint."

The Constitution certainly is malleable enough to make the Bill of Rights say just about anything. All we need are the "right" judges to make this splendid scenario come true.

Fortunately we have a broad range of judges in this country

I don't really care if they have to lie to do it. The ends justify the means. Just look at Iraq.

Look at the ME.

Thanks for your wisdom.

Thanks for your failed attempt tp take a dump on my thread. I sincerely hope your constipation clears up in the relatively near future.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I don't really care if they have to lie to do it. The ends justify the means. Just look at Iraq.

Look at the ME.

It STILL sucks and STILL isn't justified. The rest of the country is now waking up and seeing it for what it was worth...NOTHING.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Constitution is quaint. Thank goodness we have people like you to point this out.

Ex-squeeze me?

Did you really have to sink so low to respond as to put words in my OP that never existed there? I didn't even imply that the constitution is "quaint."

The Constitution certainly is malleable enough to make the Bill of Rights say just about anything. All we need are the "right" judges to make this splendid scenario come true.

Fortunately we have a broad range of judges in this country

I don't really care if they have to lie to do it. The ends justify the means. Just look at Iraq.

Look at the ME.

Thanks for your wisdom.

Thanks for your failed attempt tp take a dump on my thread. I sincerely hope your constipation clears up in the relatively near future.

Oh no, you have converted me. I am agreeing with what you mean. It's time to move on. You have already said that the truth doesn;t matter with Iraq. The end justifed it. Likewise, our security may depend on people saying one thing in order to remove traditional protections that have become undesireable in this world. Unfortunate, but things have changed.

I am sure the Founding Fathers would embrace that kind of thought. What is honor anyway? Just an old fashioned notion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... ]
Did you really have to sink so low to respond as to put words in my OP that never existed there? ...

Seems like an appropriate retort to a troll to me. How about you demonstrating how PATRIOTs I & II are consistent with the founding fathers' views on citizens' rights like due process?

 

[kogase]

I don't tend to read what you say TLC, because frankly you just piss me off. But I have to agree with you here, now is now. We don't need to bring up the Founding Fathers to justify anything, what is "right" should stand on its own merits. Claiming that what you espouse is exactly what they would have agreed with is just as presumptuous and obnoxious as people who claim that God is on their side.

 

[Vic]

Neither the "Right" nor the "Left" is anything that our Founding Fathers intended. It's not that one of you is right and the other is wrong, it's that you're both wrong. It seems the entire political philosophy of the US revolves around the logical fallacy of false dilemma, a fallacy of distraction.

Yes, our Constitution is "malleable." You want to change it through the Patriot Act, pass a damned amendment. Here's how:
"Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Otherwise, you are breaking the Constitution, the highest law of this land.

About your questions of distraction, simple:

- The Founding Fathers never gave blacks or women the vote, not because they didn't believe in civil liberties, not because they were racists, not because they hated women, but because they didn't believe in democracy. They knew full well that democracy is a highly flawed system of government.

- You note that abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution. What does that mean? It means that it was not outlawed by the federal government. There are many fools who think that if a right was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution then that means that the government can outlaw. Wrong. It's the other way around. The Constitution says only what the government can do, not what it cannot do.

- Same as above. On this note, it was the people, acting through their government, and not the constitution, that kept the practice outlawed.

- You question civil rights? Individual rights were of the highest order of business for the Founding Fathers. In fact, they pioneered an entirely new idea of government, one in which the people were free, and the government was limited. For the first time in history. Prior to this time, the people were always limited, and the government was free. I think some people, who otherwise claim to be "patriots," despise the Founding Fathers for this.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
So who's going to bring up the seperation of church and state.

I'm sure Riprorin or RobertCloud will show up and tell us that the Founders were all devout Christians of a Jerry Falwell stripe.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Oh no, you have converted me. I am agreeing with what you mean. It's time to move on. You have already said that the truth doesn;t matter with Iraq. The end justifed it. Likewise, our security may depend on people saying one thing in order to remove traditional protections that have become undesireable in this world. Unfortunate, but things have changed.

I am sure the Founding Fathers would embrace that kind of thought. What is honor anyway? Just an old fashioned notion.

And what does any of this really have to do with the topic?

Fvcking nothing. If you have a problem with me, take it to a PM. If you actually have anything to say about the topic, then do so.

 

[Stunt]

I agree that laws must change with the times, I cannot see the founding fathers supporting a lot of the social aspects of society these days. For example, say 10 years down the road, gay marriage is legalized; and for some reason GWB has passed on, he would roll in his grave as well. (figuratively that is) This is not something to be surprised by, it is how we progress as a population.

Every President who ever lived has had a different vision for the country; I'm sure more recent presidents have trumpeted the idea of the US being a manufacturing powerhouse. Those times have changed, service and R&D (knowledge) based economy will succeed and surpass the economies of the past. These are all part of our evolution.

Your quote I believe came from comments made on the new patriot act. While the reference is a little off, I support it. There are somethings that are timeless, I think (social) conservatives can agree with me on that due to their acceptance of timeless beliefs. Freedom and Liberty are all in my opinion timeless ideas. Therefore the founding fathers would roll in their graves. (along with the rest of today's issues)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am saying something about the topic. Most everyone else gets it. You personally? You are just one of many who think the changes happening are just fine. Certainly many don't think to ask what harm can come from a fundimantal rethinking of citizen rights. Rather than being bothered by things like the Patriot Act on principle, they argue that because someone doesn't know a soul [ersonally who has been harmed, they deem the concern invalid on that point.

A better way to approach it is to ask what you gain in security by suspending traditional legal protections. This country has done nicely in far more dangerous times than these. If you think it's as bad as it has ever been you haven't gotten around much. I would much rather take some chances like those Founding Fathers did (although my personal risk is far lower than theirs) and live as I have than a new order promising... what? I'm not sure that has been determined.

No thanks. I like my America as it has been.

 

[Jhhnn]

In certain respects, I'd agree with the sentiment, but have to object to some of the examples provided. People of that era had absolutely no way to even attempt to visualize our reality.

OTOH, some things never change. The Founders had seen way too much of religion in politics, even though many of them were deeply religious. They could, however, agree that separation should exist, even if some felt that divine providence would lead the minds of the representatives to do the right thing. The idea that men will do God's Will even without knowing it or feeling the need to codify that concept into law is True Faith. And they also believed very strongly in the principles of Due Process, having long suffered the lack of it under British Colonial rule at the time. As for civil rights, abolition of slavery was one of the core issues of the Enlightenment, the American Revolution being merely one of the consequences of that new way of thinking...

 

[zephyrprime]

As I recall, one of the founding fathers was for woman's suffrage. The others thought he was nuts. The founders were hugely divided about the whole issue of slavery also.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
As I recall, one of the founding fathers was for woman's suffrage. The others thought he was nuts. The founders were hugely divided about the whole issue of slavery also.

True, but the whole trend they started was the expansion of rights over time, not shrinking them as some want now. The latter would be inconsistent with what the founders aimed for.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
So who's going to bring up the seperation of church and state.

Probably when someone starts talking about the federalist papers. No such topic is mentioned in the constitution, however God is mentioned several times in the constitution....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
People of that era had absolutely no way to even attempt to visualize our reality.

Yes. Life was far harder and far more dangerous for them than it is for us now.

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
True, but the whole trend they started was the expansion of rights over time, not shrinking them as some want now. The latter would be inconsistent with what the founders aimed for.

Exactly. So many people use illogical arguments against the Founding Fathers because they didn't do everything all at once. Damnit, they couldn't. Too many opposed them and compromise was needed to make sure that anything got done at all. But what they did do was set in motion this expansion of individual rights, making possible over time the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage.

You cannot buy security by paying in liberty. It doesn't work that way. Quite the opposite, the expansion of liberty provides security. A nation of united free men cannot be defeated, but a nation of whipped slaves will destroy itself.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What would their reaction to legalized abortion be?

Actually, abortion was about the ONLY form of birth control practiced prior to the advent of "modern" methods. My grandmother, born in 1900, had four abortions (that my mother was told of) to keep the family small, and this was typical. Various folk remedies were used to terminate pregnancies in colonial times. The concept of "unborn babies" hadn't been conceived (pardon the pun) yet and abortions were non-controversial.

It was only when certain religious groups begain asserting themselves, translating their ideological beliefs into state laws, that the notion of "legal" abortions came into vogue. So I think the founding fathers reaction to the contemporary conflict over abortion would have been, "This is what happens when you try to legislate morality."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
So who's going to bring up the seperation of church and state.

Probably when someone starts talking about the federalist papers. No such topic is mentioned in the constitution, however God is mentioned several times in the constitution....

Not even once. Search for yourself: Text

Try the Bill of Rights. Oops, not there either. Text

The word God is only used once in the DoI, but in the context of "Nature's God." Text The word Creator is used once.

 

[sbacpo]

You cannot buy security by paying in liberty. It doesn't work that way. Quite the opposite, the expansion of liberty provides security. A nation of united free men cannot be defeated, but a nation of whipped slaves will destroy itself.

What a pantload. Using your argument we should abolish all laws. If we did that would you be more free or less? More secure or less?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am saying something about the topic. Most everyone else gets it. You personally? You are just one of many who think the changes happening are just fine. Certainly many don't think to ask what harm can come from a fundimantal rethinking of citizen rights. Rather than being bothered by things like the Patriot Act on principle, they argue that because someone doesn't know a soul [ersonally who has been harmed, they deem the concern invalid on that point.

And others, like you, hypothesize and prostelytize about all the supposed bad that can happen with nothing that really substantiates your case.

The facts are that the Patriot Acts don't circumvent the basic tenets of this country at all, despite the fearmongering and cage-rattling. In fact, it adheres to existing decisions that have been long established by the courts in our land. Yet that doesn't prevent the left from vigorously shaking the tree in the desperate hope that something will fall into their lap.

A better way to approach it is to ask what you gain in security by suspending traditional legal protections. This country has done nicely in far more dangerous times than these. If you think it's as bad as it has ever been you haven't gotten around much. I would much rather take some chances like those Founding Fathers did (although my personal risk is far lower than theirs) and live as I have than a new order promising... what? I'm not sure that has been determined.

No thanks. I like my America as it has been.

Uhhh...great. I like it that way too. Please prove that it's really fundamentally changed in any way. You keep forgetting that you haven't actually done that yet.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am saying something about the topic. Most everyone else gets it. You personally? You are just one of many who think the changes happening are just fine. Certainly many don't think to ask what harm can come from a fundimantal rethinking of citizen rights. Rather than being bothered by things like the Patriot Act on principle, they argue that because someone doesn't know a soul [ersonally who has been harmed, they deem the concern invalid on that point.

And others, like you, hypothesize and prostelytize about all the supposed bad that can happen with nothing that really substantiates your case.

The facts are that the Patriot Acts don't circumvent the basic tenets of this country at all, despite the fearmongering and cage-rattling. In fact, it adheres to existing decisions that have been long established by the courts in our land. Yet that doesn't prevent the left from vigorously shaking the tree in the desperate hope that something will fall into their lap.

A better way to approach it is to ask what you gain in security by suspending traditional legal protections. This country has done nicely in far more dangerous times than these. If you think it's as bad as it has ever been you haven't gotten around much. I would much rather take some chances like those Founding Fathers did (although my personal risk is far lower than theirs) and live as I have than a new order promising... what? I'm not sure that has been determined.

No thanks. I like my America as it has been.

Uhhh...great. I like it that way too. Please prove that it's really fundamentally changed in any way. You keep forgetting that you haven't actually done that yet.

Jose Padilla

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sbacpo

You cannot buy security by paying in liberty. It doesn't work that way. Quite the opposite, the expansion of liberty provides security. A nation of united free men cannot be defeated, but a nation of whipped slaves will destroy itself.

What a pantload. Using your argument we should abolish all laws. If we did that would you be more free or less? More secure or less?

Wrong. That was not my argument. The purpose of government is to secure liberty. And what is liberty (as you obviously appear not to know)?

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

The purpose of government is to protect your rights from being violated by other persons. Laws are established for this reason and this reason alone.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, and you may recall that the FBI and admintration officials wanted to give the FBI the ability to grant themselves warrants circumventing the courts. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet. That doesn't mean they didn't want it.