Why do the founding fathers matter in 2013?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I refuse to believe....

That pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

"Our government, as formed by the Constitution, can't do enough to stop presidents from subverting the Constitution."

Then that is a failure on your part, not on the god-like-poet-warriors who wrote the Constitution.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

No, wisdom has definitely been improved upon over the last few millenia, and in particular the last 5 or so centuries.

I'm guessing you never read the Supreme Court's views in Olmstead.

Originally Posted by dv1033

That is the point of the OP, that things aren't the same. Our society, culture, values, technology, perspective, etc. are not the same, which is why the Founding Fathers should be revered but not worshiped or held on infallible grounds. Some people on here treat the Constitution like the Bible.

From Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Book 8

"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature (or form)? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?"

Speech is communication. The medium of communication -- verbally, with sign language, body language, a book, a newspaper or other periodical, the internet, the airwaves --- matters not.

Marcus Aurelius writing 20 centuries ago was a helluva lot smarter and wiser than you.

Originally Posted by Some_Random_Guy

"Why do the founding fathers matter in 2013?"

Umm, I don't know. Why is the "emancipation proclamation" good?

The only thing good about the Emancipation Proclamation is that is an excellent example of Propaganda.

Name one slave freed by the Proclamation. Oh, that's right, you can't, since none were freed and the Proclamation's wording (written by a lawyer no less) bars any slaves from being freed.

Originally Posted by lycos679

Who would you trust to rewrite the constitution?

Seriously?

Thomas Sowell. Walter Williams. Maybe I'd allow Pat Buchanon to sit on a committee. I'm not even sure you could find enough qualified people in the US today.[/quote]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Your problem is not with the founders but rather with the majority of others who disagree with whatever it is you want changed.

Yes, losers like that have failed to persuade the majority to agree with their views and they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic proce*dures.

Originally Posted by dv1033

That's funny. Because the founding fathers specfically made it so only white males could vote.

And what's wrong with that?

Women weren't educated, so how does the majority benefit by allowing uneducated and undereducated people to vote?

As it became normal for women to obtain an education, and then as it became normal for women to obtain post-secondary education, and then as women proved themselves, they earned voting privileges.

You don't have a right to vote.

You want an answer to that question, look around you....right now...that's what happens when you let stupid people vote. In fact, as the world becomes more complex, it takes a tremendous effort to be even casually informed to an average level of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

We have made huge changes to our constitution.

And failed for the most part.

Instead of lowering the voting age to 18 years, they should have raised it to 25 years.

Originally Posted by BentBow

You either learn from the past, or you die repeating it.

The first time in the history of mankind, that people ruled themselves... For a short period of time.

The Popes and the Roman Catholic Church condemned the US....

The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem.

Who made that statement?

That would be Pope Leo XII in Humanus Genus.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

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.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Can you tell us what you would like to change about the Constitution rather than simply rant against it?

I guess he couldn't answer your question.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

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.

The Tyranny of the Stupid.

One major function of the Constitution is to prevent wide radical swings in political views and ideology.

That's why there is an Electoral College. That's why Senators are elected in groups of 1/3 every two years, instead of en masse like the House of Representatives.

It takes more than just 51% to change the Constitution; it requires a Quorum of 75%.

And for good reason.....stupidity costs a lot of money.

This requirement for a Quorum provides long-term stability, instead of people jumping off and on the Band-Wagon every 5 freaking minutes.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

How about we eliminate the influence of money in politics by a strong measure in the very root of our government?

How about you get off your ass and make it happen?

If you are waiting for government to eliminate the influence of money, that just ain't gonna happen. I've explained why repeatedly. And as I correctly predicted, the two feel-good pieces of legislation introduced as potential amendments to the Constitution have gone nowhere, not to mention they were poorly written and would not achieve the intended results.

The federal government will neither introduce an amendment, nor call for a constitutional convention.

Since that is forever true, that means the States must either introduce the legislation, or call for a constitutional convention.

The States will do neither for the same reason the government masquerading as a federal government won't.

That leaves one and only one option, and that is for the People....that means you....to get together and have a republic-wide ballot referendum in each State, calling for a limited Constitutional Convention.

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Section 1

No person who is not a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure.

Section 2

No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.

Section 3

Any person held in violation of this article shall be charged with a Felony.

Section 4

The Congress, the several States and subordinate political jurisdictions shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation or ordinance.


See how easy that is?

Section 1 limits campaign contributions to US citizens --- corporations may be people, but they are not citizens, so they cannot contribute, and neither can any other entity such as unions, think tanks, lobbyists or political action committees.

Section 2 limits contributions to those elections in which you can legally vote. For example, a naturalized or natural born resident of Florida may contribute money to the presidential campaign, and may contribute money to both senatorial races in Florida, and may contribute to the money to the representative in their district only.

That means people like Bill Gates and George Soros and Warren Buffet cannot throw money at gubernatorial races --- unless they happen to be living in that particular State. It also means they cannot contribute money to senatorial races in other States.

A resident of California could not contribute money to a ballot issue in Ohio designed to pump water out of Lake Erie through a pipeline to the Southwest.

If an high school friend is running for mayor, that's great, but you cannot contribute to the election unless you are eligible to vote in that city/town.

Note the use of the word "person" instead of "citizen" so that includes foreigners and corporations, unions, PACs and think tanks.

Section 3 is self-explanatory.

Section 4, well if Congress decides not to enact any legislation to punish offenders, then the States can, and if the States don't, the people can do it via ballot referendum, and then counties and cities can enact ordinances as well.

That would also mean political parties couldn't shuffle money around. Who was it, oh, the idiot Driehaus in Ohio --- even Democrats hated him and were going to vote for Republican Steve Chabot, so the Democrats pulled all of their funding from Driehaus and shifted it to other States where congressional races were too close to call.

Originally Posted by dv1033

And it was the progressives that got slaves free and freed slaves equal rights, so what's your point exactly?

Conservatives. Republicans specifically. You can attempt to re-write history any way you want, but it was Democrats who twice filibustered civil rights legislation Republicans introduced in the Senate. It was Republican governors who first gave women the right to vote, not Democrats.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

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?

You have highlighted the main differences between Authoritarianism and Authoritativeness.

The Constitution is Authoritative, not Authoritarian.

The commander sets the guidelines -- the parameters -- and we come up with a plan to achieve the goals or objectives desired by the command within those parameters. And so the plan is flexible; it is not so rigid that it cannot be altered if necessary.

Same in business. The CEO/President sets an objective or goal, along with the parameters and people come up with a plan to make it happen.

A good leader provides guidance without micro-managing.

The Constitution is a set of parameters that allows for the smooth operation of government, without micro-managing and without being so rigid that it cannot adjust to changes. The Constitution is more than capable of adjusting to changes without being amended, but in those rare cases where changes are permanent and long-lasting, then the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect those permanent changes.

Constitutionally...

Mircea

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by lycos679

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.

Sorry, you are right and I wasn't complete in my statement. (it wasn't the best time to be posting). I should have noted that our laws must be more than theory.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Some_Random_Guy

That's not just leftists, though. Everyone needs to open their eyes and realize that liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, our system has be hijacked long ago, and they all operate outside the constructs of the constitution and against the will of the people.

So true. Our system was hijacked by greed. Money talks.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That pretty much sums it up.



Then that is a failure on your part, not on the god-like-poet-warriors who wrote the Constitution.



I'm guessing you never read the Supreme Court's views in Olmstead.



From Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Book 8

"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature (or form)? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?"

Speech is communication. The medium of communication -- verbally, with sign language, body language, a book, a newspaper or other periodical, the internet, the airwaves --- matters not.

Marcus Aurelius writing 20 centuries ago was a helluva lot smarter and wiser than you.



The only thing good about the Emancipation Proclamation is that is an excellent example of Propaganda.

Name one slave freed by the Proclamation. Oh, that's right, you can't, since none were freed and the Proclamation's wording (written by a lawyer no less) bars any slaves from being freed.



Seriously?

Thomas Sowell. Walter Williams. Maybe I'd allow Pat Buchanon to sit on a committee. I'm not even sure you could find enough qualified people in the US today.

Yes, losers like that have failed to persuade the majority to agree with their views and they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic proce*dures.



And what's wrong with that?

Women weren't educated, so how does the majority benefit by allowing uneducated and undereducated people to vote?

As it became normal for women to obtain an education, and then as it became normal for women to obtain post-secondary education, and then as women proved themselves, they earned voting privileges.

You don't have a right to vote.

You want an answer to that question, look around you....right now...that's what happens when you let stupid people vote. In fact, as the world becomes more complex, it takes a tremendous effort to be even casually informed to an average level of knowledge.



And failed for the most part.

Instead of lowering the voting age to 18 years, they should have raised it to 25 years.



The Popes and the Roman Catholic Church condemned the US....

The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem.

Who made that statement?

That would be Pope Leo XII in Humanus Genus.





I guess he couldn't answer your question.



The Tyranny of the Stupid.

One major function of the Constitution is to prevent wide radical swings in political views and ideology.

That's why there is an Electoral College. That's why Senators are elected in groups of 1/3 every two years, instead of en masse like the House of Representatives.

It takes more than just 51% to change the Constitution; it requires a Quorum of 75%.

And for good reason.....stupidity costs a lot of money.

This requirement for a Quorum provides long-term stability, instead of people jumping off and on the Band-Wagon every 5 freaking minutes.



How about you get off your ass and make it happen?

If you are waiting for government to eliminate the influence of money, that just ain't gonna happen. I've explained why repeatedly. And as I correctly predicted, the two feel-good pieces of legislation introduced as potential amendments to the Constitution have gone nowhere, not to mention they were poorly written and would not achieve the intended results.

The federal government will neither introduce an amendment, nor call for a constitutional convention.

Since that is forever true, that means the States must either introduce the legislation, or call for a constitutional convention.

The States will do neither for the same reason the government masquerading as a federal government won't.

That leaves one and only one option, and that is for the People....that means you....to get together and have a republic-wide ballot referendum in each State, calling for a limited Constitutional Convention.

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Section 1

No person who is not a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure.

Section 2

No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.

Section 3

Any person held in violation of this article shall be charged with a Felony.

Section 4

The Congress, the several States and subordinate political jurisdictions shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation or ordinance.


See how easy that is?

Section 1 limits campaign contributions to US citizens --- corporations may be people, but they are not citizens, so they cannot contribute, and neither can any other entity such as unions, think tanks, lobbyists or political action committees.

Section 2 limits contributions to those elections in which you can legally vote. For example, a naturalized or natural born resident of Florida may contribute money to the presidential campaign, and may contribute money to both senatorial races in Florida, and may contribute to the money to the representative in their district only.

That means people like Bill Gates and George Soros and Warren Buffet cannot throw money at gubernatorial races --- unless they happen to be living in that particular State. It also means they cannot contribute money to senatorial races in other States.

A resident of California could not contribute money to a ballot issue in Ohio designed to pump water out of Lake Erie through a pipeline to the Southwest.

If an high school friend is running for mayor, that's great, but you cannot contribute to the election unless you are eligible to vote in that city/town.

Note the use of the word "person" instead of "citizen" so that includes foreigners and corporations, unions, PACs and think tanks.

Section 3 is self-explanatory.

Section 4, well if Congress decides not to enact any legislation to punish offenders, then the States can, and if the States don't, the people can do it via ballot referendum, and then counties and cities can enact ordinances as well.

That would also mean political parties couldn't shuffle money around. Who was it, oh, the idiot Driehaus in Ohio --- even Democrats hated him and were going to vote for Republican Steve Chabot, so the Democrats pulled all of their funding from Driehaus and shifted it to other States where congressional races were too close to call.



Conservatives. Republicans specifically. You can attempt to re-write history any way you want, but it was Democrats who twice filibustered civil rights legislation Republicans introduced in the Senate. It was Republican governors who first gave women the right to vote, not Democrats.



You have highlighted the main differences between Authoritarianism and Authoritativeness.

The Constitution is Authoritative, not Authoritarian.

The commander sets the guidelines -- the parameters -- and we come up with a plan to achieve the goals or objectives desired by the command within those parameters. And so the plan is flexible; it is not so rigid that it cannot be altered if necessary.

Same in business. The CEO/President sets an objective or goal, along with the parameters and people come up with a plan to make it happen.

A good leader provides guidance without micro-managing.

The Constitution is a set of parameters that allows for the smooth operation of government, without micro-managing and without being so rigid that it cannot adjust to changes. The Constitution is more than capable of adjusting to changes without being amended, but in those rare cases where changes are permanent and long-lasting, then the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect those permanent changes.

Constitutionally...

Mircea[/quote]


Mircea... I love your new Amendment.