..."This is not what the founding fathers would have wanted"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Granted, I am not from the US, but I continue to be baffled..Do people actually use such a line, or similar, in political debate IRL?
I really can't see the logic in appealing to something written several hundred years ago, under different circumstances, political climate, technology, trade-relations, etc.

It generally comes from the Republicans, Democrats do it as well but I think it tends to be in moments when they are trying to win over some of the more conservative crowd.

The reason you cannot see the logic in it is because like a lot of US politics, there is no logic in it. It is essentially political pandering to conservatives that sleep with a copy of the constitution under their pillow. While the rest of us came to a realization that it doesn't matter what the fuck some guys thought hundreds of years ago, it matters what we think now, there is still a considerable part of the US population that have essentially been brainwashed into believing that the past was better.

The founding fathers wanted Secularism... they defined in the constitution there to be a seperation between Religion and State...

The sad thing is that you often find that the founding fathers were better than a lot of modernday politicians... if with some major black holes...

Oh yeah but the claim "that's not what the founding fathers wanted" gets thrown around a lot and incredibly mis-used, mainly by the republicans... Sometimes its justified but more often not.

The founding fathers still allowed slavery though.
14 had held slaves during their lives and 7 did not... 2/3 had slaves...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

I have a lot of respect for the Founding Fathers, and I'm not even american. But what I realize that I think a lot of americans seem to forget, is that they were not Gods. They were a bunch of guys who could make mistakes. Hell, George Washington was actually kind of a shit general. There is absolutely no way they could come up with a fool-proof book of law that will apply to all people throughout the rest of time. And you know what? They knew this.

What they set up was more of a guide, something that could be expanded upon, changed, and edited if the needs of the time required it. What the Founding Fathers really wanted was not to have their words written as unchangable gospel, but for you americans to realize when something needs to be changed and do what's best for everyone. Survival is not about who is the strongest, survival (especially for an entire country) depends on how well you can adapt to new enviroments and events. Idolizing the past is stagnation.

The fact that the Constitution even has Amendments should be proof enough that the Founding Fathers weren't perfect and they didn't write a perfect document. As awesome as they were, they were human beings. Capable of getting things wrong. No way they could have predicted the future so to say that the Constitution that was written in the 18th century applies word-for-word to everything today is kind of... dumb.

Then again I'm not an American which according to the people who usually whine about things "shredding the Constitution" means I'm not qualified to know anything about America.

pyrate:
The reason you cannot see the logic in it is because like a lot of US politics, there is no logic in it. It is essentially political pandering to conservatives that sleep with a copy of the constitution under their pillow.

And never actually read it. You forgot that part. A lot of American conservatives regard the Constitution the same way they do the Bible: glance at it occasionally and more often have someone else interpret it for them.

What makes using the founding fathers to appeal to the conservative base especially hilarious is when you realize that modern American conservatives and the founding fathers would have hated each other. Most of them were lawyers, some of them scientists, all of them educated men and intellectuals. They smoked pot and hung out in Hellfire Clubs. Benjamin Franklin was America's first pimp who wrote books about farting and how much he liked MILFs. Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer, a physicist, an astronomer, the founder of the University of Virginia, a violinist, and spoke 6 languages. They hung out with European high society and drew policy inspiration from the ancient Greeks, Romans, and the Caliphates. They were mostly deists and atheists who said that America was not and never had been a Christian nation. Franklin even said that lighthouses were more useful than churches.

Can you imagine any of these men winning a red state?

DrVornoff:

pyrate:
The reason you cannot see the logic in it is because like a lot of US politics, there is no logic in it. It is essentially political pandering to conservatives that sleep with a copy of the constitution under their pillow.

And never actually read it. You forgot that part. A lot of American conservatives regard the Constitution the same way they do the Bible: glance at it occasionally and more often have someone else interpret it for them.

What makes using the founding fathers to appeal to the conservative base especially hilarious is when you realize that modern American conservatives and the founding fathers would have hated each other. Most of them were lawyers, some of them scientists, all of them educated men and intellectuals. They smoked pot and hung out in Hellfire Clubs. Benjamin Franklin was America's first pimp who wrote books about farting and how much he liked MILFs. Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer, a physicist, an astronomer, the founder of the University of Virginia, a violinist, and spoke 6 languages. They hung out with European high society and drew policy inspiration from the ancient Greeks, Romans, and the Caliphates. They were mostly deists and atheists who said that America was not and never had been a Christian nation. Franklin even said that lighthouses were more useful than churches.

Can you imagine any of these men winning a red state?

It is quite funny. Even funnier is when you realize that the conservative base wouldn't vote for Jesus either as he was a socialist hippy.

At the end of the day it comes down to what conservatives are so fond of, ignorance.

pyrate:

DrVornoff:

pyrate:
The reason you cannot see the logic in it is because like a lot of US politics, there is no logic in it. It is essentially political pandering to conservatives that sleep with a copy of the constitution under their pillow.

And never actually read it. You forgot that part. A lot of American conservatives regard the Constitution the same way they do the Bible: glance at it occasionally and more often have someone else interpret it for them.

What makes using the founding fathers to appeal to the conservative base especially hilarious is when you realize that modern American conservatives and the founding fathers would have hated each other. Most of them were lawyers, some of them scientists, all of them educated men and intellectuals. They smoked pot and hung out in Hellfire Clubs. Benjamin Franklin was America's first pimp who wrote books about farting and how much he liked MILFs. Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer, a physicist, an astronomer, the founder of the University of Virginia, a violinist, and spoke 6 languages. They hung out with European high society and drew policy inspiration from the ancient Greeks, Romans, and the Caliphates. They were mostly deists and atheists who said that America was not and never had been a Christian nation. Franklin even said that lighthouses were more useful than churches.

Can you imagine any of these men winning a red state?

It is quite funny. Even funnier is when you realize that the conservative base wouldn't vote for Jesus either as he was a socialist hippy.

At the end of the day it comes down to what conservatives are so fond of, ignorance.

Why stop at Jesus? They wouldn't vote for Lincoln nowadays either. Hell, they'd probably not even vote for Ronald Reagan nowadays, they only convince themselves they're still good Reagan conservatives because they're wearing Rose-tinted nostalgia goggles about the guy.

It seems to me that the US has two major religious texts that massive amounts of it's people and government put too much faith in. The Bible and the Constitution. I honestly find the second one more disturbing, with people's absolute obsession with something even they admit was written by just another bunch of guys.

Part of me can't help but feel we're seeing a textbook case of how faiths develop, are spread and become enshrined in mythology.

Craorach:
It seems to me that the US has two major religious texts that massive amounts of it's people and government put too much faith in. The Bible and the Constitution.

Both of which are read in the same manner as a software agreement: skip to the end and click "I Agree."

I think it should be more about what the modern people require than what the founders desired. And, yes I have heard a few people use this line in political discussions.

Yassen:
I have a lot of respect for the Founding Fathers, and I'm not even american. But what I realize that I think a lot of americans seem to forget, is that they were not Gods. They were a bunch of guys who could make mistakes. Hell, George Washington was actually kind of a shit general. There is absolutely no way they could come up with a fool-proof book of law that will apply to all people throughout the rest of time. And you know what? They knew this.

What they seem to forget is that the founding fathers lived in a very different time.

For instance, whenever tighter gun laws come up, people cite the outdated amendments. I you seriously telling me something that was written when fully automatic rifles were a distant dream should still be taken by the word today?

pyrate:

It is quite funny. Even funnier is when you realize that the conservative base wouldn't vote for Jesus either as he was a socialist hippy.

At the end of the day it comes down to what conservatives are so fond of, ignorance.

Hey! I can let go all the circle-jerking where this board decides to claim the founding fathers' opinion exactly the same way as the people they are mocking, but Jesus was not a socialist. Jesus was a volunteerist, and voluntary socialism is not a form of government. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, but only if you choose to do it yourself" is not a description of socialism.

You may call Jesus a hippie though.

It's usually a conservative concept to try and kill an arguement, the stupid idea being that because a bunch of guys over 2 centuries ago decided this was what worked, that is the only way things should ever work. That's like saying forget penicilin because bleeding with leeches was the established medical practice.

That's the irony. The constitution can be ammended to meet the needs of the people at the time, so the founding fathers would have wanted us to quit asking what they would have wanted, and start determining what is needed for the country to run. Heck, the fact that some of what is held so sacred wasn't in the first draft should be enough clue that these guys weren't infalable.

Yassen:
But what I realize that I think a lot of americans seem to forget, is that they were not Gods.

And lo did the great Benjamin Franklin call upon the heavens above in his infinite wisdom and did so pull down the power of the ancient god Zeus, gifting the mortal world with power they so kept from us. And Zeus did become angry and attempt to smite Franklin in a storm of wrath, so Franklin used his mighty intellect to trick Zeus into mortal form by enticing him with his many favored women of physical appeal. So Zeus lay with Franklin's women, and did catch syphilis, he did weary and finally fell trapped in the mortal shell. All praise be to Benjamin Franklin, our new American God, may his wisdom and cunning ever power our grand designs. Amen.

You are quite right, there were not gods, but heroes who would dare defy them!

I'm sure we could all agree that our founding fathers would probably scoff at our current political climate and move to Canada.

Realitycrash:
Granted, I am not from the US, but I continue to be baffled..Do people actually use such a line, or similar, in political debate IRL?
I really can't see the logic in appealing to something written several hundred years ago, under different circumstances, political climate, technology, trade-relations, etc.

Ok let me just see if I can delve into your thought process a little. Ahem...according to your grand, all powerful and omniscient brain, anything old is automatically defunct and useless and must make way for something trendy and new. Therefore, we must constantly be updating our laws in order to give society the best possible template on which to function. This of course means that all that "old" stuff about , separation of powers, rule of law, individual freedom and the like must be replaced by the hip and trendy "give me free shit because Im alive and I deserve it" mindset. Did I come close? No? Damn, and for a second I almost gave a shit.

Not knowing exactly where you are from, let me give a simple yet (hopefully) definitive answer to your question. Here in the U.S., we believe in something called the rule of law. Now, supposedly everyone follows this principle, so it should come as no surprise that this also applies in 'Murrica as well. Now, in the US, we have something known as the Constitution. Now, a lot of places have constitutions. Its not something particularly new (that means its old! quick, burn it burn it!) nor is it "trendy" or "hip" but it does provide us with something important: a basis, or guideline, for how our government is supposed to function in order to best serve the needs of its people. In our Constitution are several sections, known as Articles, which detail the specific powers and privileges granted to the three different branches of American government. Now, you might be correctly thinking that since this WAS written in 1787, things have changed quite a bit since then and so the Constitution must be out of date and in need of a serious reboot, or that we Americans should abandon it completely in favor of something radically new and different. Oh but wait dear reader, for I have some exciting news for you! Within the Constitution, there is written the process by which you might amend that same document in order to update it and bring it "up to speed" with modern times. Oh, joy and happiness! Why, there have already been 27 such amendments to the original Constitution.

So, WHY is this so important? Well, Ill tell you. Within the text of the original Constitution (before the amendments that means) there is a phrase which claims that "this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land", meaning that no law passes by Congress (again using their Constitutionally granted powers) can ever conflict with the rest of the Constitution nor its amendments, since Congress was not delegated (given or loaned) power by the People of the United States (in whom supreme governing power rests, and which has never nor can ever be surrendered or abrogated in full) to do so.

To conclude, what does all this mean? Well, quite simply, it means that according to the rule of law, the Constitution is supreme and therefore can never be usurped nor replaced, though it can be amended. Since this is the entire basis of the American experiment, defense of the Constitution or demands to return to Constitutional government are more or less people trying to demand that the law be followed.

Yeah, I don't get the brainless worship of the founding fathers that I see sometimes. It's not a real point to say that something is what they would have wanted. They're fallible and people should learn to think for themselves anyway. If they think for themselves they should have reasoning besides "The founding fathers would have wanted it"

Brett Dumain:
Ok let me just see if I can delve into your thought process a little. Ahem...according to your grand, all powerful and omniscient brain, anything old is automatically defunct and useless and must make way for something trendy and new. Therefore, we must constantly be updating our laws in order to give society the best possible template on which to function. This of course means that all that "old" stuff about , separation of powers, rule of law, individual freedom and the like must be replaced by the hip and trendy "give me free shit because Im alive and I deserve it" mindset. Did I come close? No? Damn, and for a second I almost gave a shit.

Not knowing exactly where you are from, let me give a simple yet (hopefully) definitive answer to your question. Here in the U.S., we believe in something called the rule of law. Now, supposedly everyone follows this principle, so it should come as no surprise that this also applies in 'Murrica as well. Now, in the US, we have something known as the Constitution. Now, a lot of places have constitutions. Its not something particularly new (that means its old! quick, burn it burn it!) nor is it "trendy" or "hip" but it does provide us with something important: a basis, or guideline, for how our government is supposed to function in order to best serve the needs of its people. In our Constitution are several sections, known as Articles, which detail the specific powers and privileges granted to the three different branches of American government. Now, you might be correctly thinking that since this WAS written in 1787, things have changed quite a bit since then and so the Constitution must be out of date and in need of a serious reboot, or that we Americans should abandon it completely in favor of something radically new and different. Oh but wait dear reader, for I have some exciting news for you! Within the Constitution, there is written the process by which you might amend that same document in order to update it and bring it "up to speed" with modern times. Oh, joy and happiness! Why, there have already been 27 such amendments to the original Constitution.

Dude, I'm an American too. Quit making me look bad.

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
snippy snip

Dude, I'm an American too. Quit making me look bad.

Where am I wrong? Oh wait, Im not and you just cant stand the idea that one of us eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Reich wingers might have a point about something??

Brett Dumain:
Where am I wrong? Oh wait, Im not and you just cant stand the idea that one of us eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Reich wingers might have a point about something??

No, it's the horrible, arrogant, out-of-touch, holier-than-thou, "Let me lay some learnin' on you dirty foreigners," attitude you're espousing. You're playing directly into the stereotype of a clueless American jingoist.

And don't tell me what my opinions are. You are not a conservative. I've had debates with real conservatives and they're all smarter, wittier, more eloquent and overall more respectable human beings than you.

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
Where am I wrong? Oh wait, Im not and you just cant stand the idea that one of us eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Reich wingers might have a point about something??

No, it's the horrible, arrogant, out-of-touch, holier-than-thou, "Let me lay some learnin' on you dirty foreigners," attitude you're espousing. You're playing directly into the stereotype of a clueless American jingoist.

And don't tell me what my opinions are. You are not a conservative. I've had debates with real conservatives and they're all smarter, wittier, more eloquent and overall more respectable human beings than you.

Oh, you mean like the same attitude all dem libruls love to take with us backward, gun toting, bible clinging rednecks? Hmmmm, seems a bit of fair play never hurt nobody, though I cant say any of those labels really apply to myself ^.^

You still havent shown where Im wrong by the way :)

Brett Dumain:

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
Where am I wrong? Oh wait, Im not and you just cant stand the idea that one of us eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Reich wingers might have a point about something??

No, it's the horrible, arrogant, out-of-touch, holier-than-thou, "Let me lay some learnin' on you dirty foreigners," attitude you're espousing. You're playing directly into the stereotype of a clueless American jingoist.

And don't tell me what my opinions are. You are not a conservative. I've had debates with real conservatives and they're all smarter, wittier, more eloquent and overall more respectable human beings than you.

Oh, you mean like the same attitude all dem libruls love to take with us backward, gun toting, bible clinging rednecks? Hmmmm, seems a bit of fair play never hurt nobody, though I cant say any of those labels really apply to myself ^.^

You still havent shown where Im wrong by the way :)

His point wasn't to prove you wrong.

Just sayin'

Brett Dumain:
Oh, you mean like the same attitude all dem libruls love to take with us backward, gun toting, bible clinging rednecks? Hmmmm, seems a bit of fair play never hurt nobody, though I cant say any of those labels really apply to myself ^.^

I didn't actually call you a redneck. Just an ignorant nationalist shooting his mouth off and being unnecessarily rude.

You still havent shown where Im wrong by the way :)

Your Civics for Dummies rant will be addressed by the guy you were talking to. I just wanted to tell you to drop the attitude and stop being such a goddamn embarrassment.

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
Oh, you mean like the same attitude all dem libruls love to take with us backward, gun toting, bible clinging rednecks? Hmmmm, seems a bit of fair play never hurt nobody, though I cant say any of those labels really apply to myself ^.^

I didn't actually call you a redneck. Just an ignorant nationalist shooting his mouth off and being unnecessarily rude.

You still havent shown where Im wrong by the way :)

Your Civics for Dummies rant will be addressed by the guy you were talking to. I just wanted to tell you to drop the attitude and stop being such a goddamn embarrassment.

I never said you did. Obviously your reading comprehension is right on par with your civility.

Since Ive had this discussion before, several times in fact, it becomes a little grating having to re-explain exactly WHY it is us "backward right wingers" cling so bitterly to that old outdated document, especially when the audience at hand simply cant seem to get it through their pointy thick skulls.

Personally I don't like the argument about what the Founding Fathers would have wanted because my college learnin' in the subject suggests that the Founding Fathers themselves didn't actually think they were making the Constitution to end all Constitutions, and (as one probably would have readily assumed if given the history without the myth) when they were writing the Constitution they were more concerned with putting together a functional government for a nation that did not yet have such a thing than they were with writing a document to be interpreted by judges and legislators over 200 years later. These days when people talk about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution you'd think they were talking about a document written exclusively by three people (Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, of course) while Alexander Hamilton strangled puppies to amuse himself.

Brett Dumain:

Realitycrash:
Granted, I am not from the US, but I continue to be baffled..Do people actually use such a line, or similar, in political debate IRL?
I really can't see the logic in appealing to something written several hundred years ago, under different circumstances, political climate, technology, trade-relations, etc.

Ok let me just see if I can delve into your thought process a little. Ahem...according to your grand, all powerful and omniscient brain, anything old is automatically defunct and useless and must make way for something trendy and new. Therefore, we must constantly be updating our laws in order to give society the best possible template on which to function. This of course means that all that "old" stuff about , separation of powers, rule of law, individual freedom and the like must be replaced by the hip and trendy "give me free shit because Im alive and I deserve it" mindset. Did I come close? No? Damn, and for a second I almost gave a shit.

Not knowing exactly where you are from, let me give a simple yet (hopefully) definitive answer to your question. Here in the U.S., we believe in something called the rule of law. Now, supposedly everyone follows this principle, so it should come as no surprise that this also applies in 'Murrica as well. Now, in the US, we have something known as the Constitution. Now, a lot of places have constitutions. Its not something particularly new (that means its old! quick, burn it burn it!) nor is it "trendy" or "hip" but it does provide us with something important: a basis, or guideline, for how our government is supposed to function in order to best serve the needs of its people. In our Constitution are several sections, known as Articles, which detail the specific powers and privileges granted to the three different branches of American government. Now, you might be correctly thinking that since this WAS written in 1787, things have changed quite a bit since then and so the Constitution must be out of date and in need of a serious reboot, or that we Americans should abandon it completely in favor of something radically new and different. Oh but wait dear reader, for I have some exciting news for you! Within the Constitution, there is written the process by which you might amend that same document in order to update it and bring it "up to speed" with modern times. Oh, joy and happiness! Why, there have already been 27 such amendments to the original Constitution.

So, WHY is this so important? Well, Ill tell you. Within the text of the original Constitution (before the amendments that means) there is a phrase which claims that "this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land", meaning that no law passes by Congress (again using their Constitutionally granted powers) can ever conflict with the rest of the Constitution nor its amendments, since Congress was not delegated (given or loaned) power by the People of the United States (in whom supreme governing power rests, and which has never nor can ever be surrendered or abrogated in full) to do so.

To conclude, what does all this mean? Well, quite simply, it means that according to the rule of law, the Constitution is supreme and therefore can never be usurped nor replaced, though it can be amended. Since this is the entire basis of the American experiment, defense of the Constitution or demands to return to Constitutional government are more or less people trying to demand that the law be followed.

Sorry, mate, but I stopped reading when you said that I suggested that I did no longer want separation of law and individual freedom. You know very well that's not what I meant, and I have no idea what you are going on about.

DevilWithaHalo:
And lo did the great Benjamin Franklin call upon the heavens above in his infinite wisdom and did so pull down the power of the ancient god Zeus, gifting the mortal world with power they so kept from us. And Zeus did become angry and attempt to smite Franklin in a storm of wrath, so Franklin used his mighty intellect to trick Zeus into mortal form by enticing him with his many favored women of physical appeal. So Zeus lay with Franklin's women, and did catch syphilis, he did weary and finally fell trapped in the mortal shell. All praise be to Benjamin Franklin, our new American God, may his wisdom and cunning ever power our grand designs. Amen.

That was awesome! You seriously need to get that made into a poster you sell on the Internet. Or at least a web-comic.

I hope it doesn't offend anyone if I suggest a general trait of conservative thinking is to appeal to a (legitimate) authority for establishing order. The founding fathers are a perfect authority to appeal to, because like religious figures they are unlikely to contradict the person making the appeal (given that they're you know, dead) and unlike religious figures they are known to have existed and documented, but the documentf are old-fafioned printingf in a mode of Englifh rarely ufed today, fo moft people aren't going to actually follow up and check on what the Founding Fatherf actually faid.

I guess saying 'that's not what the founders wanted' is an easier way of saying 'that conflicts with the founding principles on which this country is based' (or something to that effect). The Constitution may not be perfect, but it has sustained us and shaped our destiny for a good long time. Separation of powers. Power vested in The People. Limits on Power. All of this was designed not only to set up the framework to govern our country, but to keep those who govern us from subjugating us.

So yes, the 'founders' would be horrified that there is a black man -scratch that- a HALF white/ HALF Black man (which would have been even worse in the 1700's) occupying the office of President, but it is in keeping with the foundational principles of the land.

Comando96:
The founding fathers wanted Secularism... they defined in the constitution there to be a seperation between Religion and State...

The founding fathers did not want secularism they wanted a secular government (in contrast to government in Europe where the Church wielded notable political power). The founding fathers were neither full blown deists nor were they evangelicals as some claim.

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
I never said you did. Obviously your reading comprehension is right on par with your civility.

Back atcha. You want to treated like an adult? Earn it.

Since Ive had this discussion before, several times in fact, it becomes a little grating having to re-explain exactly WHY it is us "backward right wingers" cling so bitterly to that old outdated document, especially when the audience at hand simply cant seem to get it through their pointy thick skulls.

Yawn. Get over your persecution complex, kid. I've heard it a million times before from people much smarter than you.

Let me give you some words of wisdom.

DO
NOT
BOTHER

Just stop.

Sit in a comfy chair, play some music and read a book that you love and try to forget.

It seems that with the slaying of xpowder, three more popped up in his place.

OP- appeals to tradition are common in all countries. I cannot believe that Sweden has no appeals whatsoever to tradition.

Yes, the Constitution was written a couple hundreds of years ago in a different situation, but the point of it still applies today. Generally politicians use that line as nothing more than rhetoric, but that does not mean it doesn't have any precedence today. Without it, things will spiral out of control and we'll have a dictatorship on our hands. That's partly why it was created, to be a defense against such things.

It's pretty much the grey area that founded the U.S.

I mean it was founded with ideas that enough checks and balances should be put in place that no single government will be able to turn the U.S. into a dictatorship or anything.

But it was also founded saying black people are 3/5ths of a person and women are 0/5ths.

All the southern founding fathers' were writing up this document with a straight face when arguing why their slave economy was necessary in this freedom based country.

It's a waste of time to argue over what the founding fathers intentions were in the first place and more proper to argue over what effects those policies have on a modern day with things like the internet and many other things that couldn't have possibly be in the consideration of the fathers.

So, yeah. What the founding fathers wanted is worthless anymore. They still had plenty of good ideas that we should continue with but we should at least question everything they've done before.

I'm waiting for the day when we all stop pretending the founding fathers are some amorphous blob with a few faces whose name we remember swirling about.
The founding fathers hardly agreed on anything, so arguing what they as an entire group want is pretty pointless.

Besides, what the founding fathers want isn't really important, it's what the document says and how the supreme court interprets it that's the real issue.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked