- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does it matter what the "Founders intentions" were?
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:00 pm to Patrick O Rly
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:00 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Nonsense. If men are flawed, then what they create is flawed as well.
No one said it was perfect, but it was (and is) better than anything before or since.
The Founders themselves even mentioned what to do in such cases.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
LC
1
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:02 pm to LongueCarabine
But you say not to blame the instrument. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:04 pm to Patrick O Rly
Too often in debates about history people ignore the primary sources. This quote is from Madison:
To add clarity: "By this criterion, the intentions of the framers were legally irrelevant to its interpretation, but the understandings of the ratification could provide a legitimate basis for attempting to fix the original meaning of the Constitution." -Rakove
Therefore if you take Madison's advice, study the ratification debates. I suggest Pauline Maier's book.
quote:
But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution. As the instrument came from them it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State Conventions. If we were to look, therefore, for the meaning of the instrument beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it, not in the General Convention, which proposed, but in the State Conventions, which accepted and ratified the Constitution.
To add clarity: "By this criterion, the intentions of the framers were legally irrelevant to its interpretation, but the understandings of the ratification could provide a legitimate basis for attempting to fix the original meaning of the Constitution." -Rakove
Therefore if you take Madison's advice, study the ratification debates. I suggest Pauline Maier's book.
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:05 pm to fouldeliverer
The issue of course is that the Founders were a very disparate group with many different opinions on the matter.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:05 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
But you say not to blame the instrument. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
Are you trying to suggest that they should have written a more perfect instrument? That's pretty easy to say in hindsight.
LC
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:12 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
Are you trying to suggest that they should have written a more perfect instrument? That's pretty easy to say in hindsight.
I think he's trying to say that people need to stop believing the notion that the Constitution is capable of preventing the growth of the state.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:13 pm to LongueCarabine
No. Nothing is perfect. What I'm saying is it's a horrible idea to have an involuntary system of government because of flawed men.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:19 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
it's a horrible idea to have an involuntary system of government because of flawed men
You just lost me. I have no idea what you are getting at.
LC
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:21 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
I think he's trying to say that people need to stop believing the notion that the Constitution is capable of preventing the growth of the state.
Well, I guess in a way he's sort of correct. It takes a set of rules (the Constitution) and men who are willing to stand on their principles.
I don't see how this changes anything.
LC
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:28 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
You just lost me. I have no idea what you are getting at.
Our system of government is involuntary.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:30 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
I don't see how this changes anything.
The way the constitution is talked about is beyond sunshine pumping. Some people goes as far as to say it was inspired by God.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:32 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Our system of government is involuntary.
Um, yeah, OK. If you care to expound on this thesis, I might read it. Then again, I might not.
Not sure how you get from an imperfect document that doesn't work, to an involuntary system of government.
LC
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:34 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
What I'm saying is it's a horrible idea to have an involuntary system of government because of flawed men.
I submit that as the most meaningless quote of the week.
Let me try to out do you.. "I submit that goodness is better than badness."
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:42 pm to Patrick O Rly
Wrong again goofy.
Just because ignorant liberal judges have twisted the meaning of the constitution, you try and lay blame on the founding fathers, which is utter BS.
Any idiot that finds a right to kill babies in the constitution through the right to privacy clause can find any thing in the constitution they want to.
Judges, federal kudges have usurped the powrrs not hiven them by the constitution whilst working hand in hand with federal government cronies.
Just because ignorant liberal judges have twisted the meaning of the constitution, you try and lay blame on the founding fathers, which is utter BS.
Any idiot that finds a right to kill babies in the constitution through the right to privacy clause can find any thing in the constitution they want to.
Judges, federal kudges have usurped the powrrs not hiven them by the constitution whilst working hand in hand with federal government cronies.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:49 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
Um, yeah, OK. If you care to expound on this thesis, I might read it. Then again, I might not.
There are voluntary forms of order and governance. In our system, you are taxed whether you consent or not, which I believe is immoral.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:51 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
Did liberal judges create the judiciary? I didn't say the founders were completely to blame, but they share in a huge part of it.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:55 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
you are taxed whether you consent or not,
Well hell, I don't like taxes either, but you go find a system of government where taxes are truly voluntary.
If I remember correctly, the Constitution directly addressed taxation.
LC
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:59 pm to Patrick O Rly
It doesn't help that every government since the founders has completely ignored the plain text they literally wrote on paper...
Posted on 1/26/14 at 7:37 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
Well hell, I don't like taxes either, but you go find a system of government where taxes are truly voluntary.
Which is why I don't support them, at least philosophically. I have no choice otherwise.
But even if you're a small government proponent, I'd see the constitution as the beginning of the end of it, or the civil war at the latest.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 7:57 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
I'd see the constitution as the beginning of the end of it, or the civil war at the latest.
Well then, take your chances with anarchy, I guess. Let us know how that works out for you.
LC
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News