Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Specifically, why should we take everything they thought and wrote down with holy reverence, as opposed to learning from them in the process of making a government made for today?
Over the last 237 years, they've been elevated to a level somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I refuse to believe that the best and only solutions to the problem of government were made by a group of enlightened super-men from a past age of civilization. Neither they nor their contemporaries thought nearly as high of their ideas as many people do today.
It was all explained during the Reece Commission, probably before you were born. The commission led by Congressman Reece investigated non-profit foundations and endowments, and their possible anti-American activities and agendas.
In the study of internal documents discovered at the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and the Carnegie Endowment, the investigation uncovered a conspiracy to foment the rewriting of American history for the purpose of altering American values to embrace a socialist/communist future, through education in the public schools, and universities.
Specifically, why should we take everything they thought and wrote down with holy reverence, as opposed to learning from them in the process of making a government made for today?
Over the last 237 years, they've been elevated to a level somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I refuse to believe that the best and only solutions to the problem of government were made by a group of enlightened super-men from a past age of civilization. Neither they nor their contemporaries thought nearly as high of their ideas as many people do today.
Because it's the rule book. When we watch a football game, the refs enforce the rules. When we watch a basketball game, the refs enforce the rules. In baseball...the umpires enforce it. The entire game hinges on whether or not they do.
Likewise, the American society hangs on whether or not we live by the rule book we have. If you don't like it, change it. But we can't make up our own rules as we go.
Sure, then let's change the rulebook. Why can't that option be on the table?
Specifically, why should we take everything they thought and wrote down with holy reverence, as opposed to learning from them in the process of making a government made for today?
Over the last 237 years, they've been elevated to a level somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I refuse to believe that the best and only solutions to the problem of government were made by a group of enlightened super-men from a past age of civilization. Neither they nor their contemporaries thought nearly as high of their ideas as many people do today.
We don't take everything they thought and wrote down with holy reverence. We take the constitution as the bedrock of our nation. It doesn't matter who wrote it.
When something works, it works. When they founded the nation, it was an experiment. Over the next 187 or so of those 237 years that you refer to, that experiment turned out to be the most successful and enlightened nation in the history of the world. You can't argue with success. Over the past 50 of those 237 years that you refer to, we went ahead and instituted a welfare state, abandoned much of the separation of powers, and in general came up with our own "progressive" solutions to the problem of government and the result has been runaway debt, failing schools, rampant consumerism, a breakdown of family, rising influence of special interest groups, and violations of personal freedom.
So if it's all the same to you, on balance you can take Barrack Obama and I'll keep George Washington.
Sure, then let's change the rulebook. Why can't that option be on the table?
Because what you want to go back to is regressive and pre-revolutionary. Your feudal fantasies where a unitary government or even worse a king reigns supreme are old, antiquated and outmoded.
You call them a group of super men and posit a position of a super man. Take your little worshipping ass elsewhere, I don't want anything to do with your obsessive compulsive control freak ass anywhere near me.
There's more to it, but I think it should be much less vague and it should actually be enforced instead of allowing widely different interpretations to fly around. I also think it should be easier to change; people on here are right in pointing out that an amendment process exists, but our Constitution has one of the most challenging of these in the entire world. How about we eliminate the influence of money in politics by a strong measure in the very root of our government? I think the Constitution is a good second try, but no one with an open mind can look at it and think it's perfect.
I happen to be extremely prejudiced against traditionalism and dogma in the macro scale. The founding fathers were great because they dared to try something radically different. Now that spirit has entirely vanished. Fields like science and philosophy are continuously evolving, yet many think politics should remain as close as possible to 18th century ideals. The proven best way to find the truth is to admit that you may not already have it.
I don't think many people think the Constitution is perfect. I don't. But it is a remarkable statement of the basic principles this country is based on. A more precise document seems unwarranted to me - many states have highly detailed constitutions where ordinary statutes are documented. Amendments are continuous.
I don't think the Constitution should be that detailed. The core values I taught my children are not very detailed or specific.
Do you want the Constitution to specify what the FCC or EPA should do? Dictate how many generals we should have in the military? Tell us how to regulate the internet or Wall Street?
As for those who criticize that the Constitution was written saying "men" and not acknowledging non-white men.....would you have expected the FF to be so brilliant that they could completely set aside the prevailing morals and values thought to be fair at the time? Obviously the amendment process has expanded the rights of individuals to non-whites and women.
One of the biggest problems I see with the Constitution is that not enough people have read it after they read in middle school.
They never thought they were perfect and neither does anyone else. That's why the built the process to amend The Constitution. It's supposed to be a challenge to amend it because it's a very significant thing to amend how the government works or it's power that should not be able to be changed as the wind blows. The fact that things may not have been changed the way you want simply means that not enough people agree with you; that's not the fault of the founding fathers.
Sure we can! You just have to test the theory and be fairly certain the theory will hold up. Economics is just a theory, gravity is just a theory, the concept of fairness is just a theory. I don't know if you could say our laws are based on theory, but they are definitely influenced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
Sure, then let's change the rulebook. Why can't that option be on the table?
We have always had that option. The constitution simply lays the framework that we govern ourselves by and gives certain powers to the federal government. The constitution is the chain that binds the federal gov. and any power not specifically granted to the federal gov is reserved for the state and people. I can only think of a handful of amendments I would like to see added. If fact, I'm not even sure that an amendment is needed for half of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
As for those who criticize that the Constitution was written saying "men" and not acknowledging non-white men.....would you have expected the FF to be so brilliant that they could completely set aside the prevailing morals and values thought to be fair at the time? Obviously the amendment process has expanded the rights of individuals to non-whites and women.
One of the biggest problems I see with the Constitution is that not enough people have read it after they read in middle school.
It would have been nice if every person was free and not just rich white male landowners, Russia got rid of slavery in the 1700's, but as stated we fixed this.
I would add that not enough people have read the Federalist papers and not too many people seem to know what the original intent was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
