Were the Founding Fathers of the 1780's unAmerican?

[Burgold]

Reading a couple of threads, people referring back to enormous wisdom of our living documents and the men and the ideals that they used to form it. It made me wonder. How many of their practices or beliefs would we today consider unAmerican or unethical. The most obvious one is the tolerance or active participation in slavery, but I just wonder would the Founding Father's recognize America today. I believe the core principles remain, but would their vision of America and our vision of Ameica be radically different?

[stwasm]

From what I've seen, when the founding fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, they definitely did NOT have minorities in mind.

[Burgold]

What I think a lot of the people who say that they only believe in the declaration of Independence and the Constitution as it was originally intended forget is that it is a living document, that it was meant to be a living document, and with the exception of some growing pains, most of the growth has been positive. Minority rights, who can vote, who can own property, etc. certainly is a great example.

[rincewind]

I think if you plucked them out of the 1780s and placed them in today's world - then yes they would probably be viewed as unamerican (or more accurately they would view us as unamerican). But, if they were allowed to live through the past 200+ years, then i think they would be able to adjust to today's political and social trends and find into the mold of Americans.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Reading a couple of threads, people referring back to enormous wisdom of our living documents and the men and the ideals that they used to form it. It made me wonder. How many of their practices or beliefs would we today consider unAmerican or unethical. The most obvious one is the tolerance or active participation in slavery, but I just wonder would the Founding Father's recognize America today. I believe the core principles remain, but would their vision of America and our vision of America be radically different?

Interestingly, I believe they would see a country whose core principles have been totally ignored/given up in the last century. Oh, the fluff and the trappings would look vaguely the same, but once you pulled back the red, white and blue wrapping there's nothing more than a hollow shell.

I believe that they would be exceptionally disappointed in us and what we've done to the foundations for this country that they laid.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

What I think a lot of the people who say that they only believe in the declaration of Independence and the Constitution as it was originally intended forget is that it is a living document, that it was meant to be a living document, and with the exception of some growing pains, most of the growth has been positive. Minority rights, who can vote, who can own property, etc. certainly is a great example.

It is a living document ONLY through the Amendment process. Not through re-reading or interpretation. If you don't like what it says on a topic, you need to get an Amendment to change it, not simply somebody to say "well that part isn't relevant in this day and age."

I will also disagree with the idea that all the Amendments are good things. There are some I would definitely prefer to see removed.

[Burgold]

Interestingly, I believe they would see a country whose core principles have been totally ignored/given up in the last century. Oh, the fluff and the trappings would look vaguely the same, but once you pulled back the red, white and blue wrapping there's nothing more than a hollow shell.

I believe that they would be exceptionally disappointed in us and what we've done to the foundations for this country that they laid.

I know. I feel the same way about what all these years of Conservative Presidencies and conservative Congresses have done to this great nation. I feel what you are saying. That if we hadn't had the Oasis of Democracy for most of the '90's there would be almost nothing of America left. ;)

I actually agree that they would be alarmed, but I think some of what they would be alarmed at would shock us. Some of what they think is natural and fundamental, we would view as backwards. Thomas Jefferson, Adams, and the rest were absolute geniuses and for their time amazingly foresighted, but some of the underlying principles of the world they lived in (primarily in social issues-- who should be educated, who should be allowed to own property, who could find employment and of what sort, who should be allowed to vote, what constituted property) were wrong.

Now the real genius behind what they wanted, what they risked their lives to create still holds. The ideas of a representitive government, free speech, free press, right to assemble, etc. They are still rock solid concepts.

[Burgold]

It is a living document ONLY through the Amendment process. Not through re-reading or interpretation.

If the founding fathers did not believe that it was living through interpretation and rereading they would have never established a Supreme Court as a check.

[gchwood]

I think tht if they were plucked out of the 1780's and put in todays society, they would look pretty darn silly, with those wigs and clothes and all. I think that we should have slavery, I mean everyone else is training apes to do things, why can't I have a legion of them to do my bidding?

[brewdogmike]

If the founding fathers did not believe that it was living through interpretation and rereading they would have never established a Supreme Court as a check.

The Supreme Court acts as a check by ensuring that the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches comport with the actual words written in the Constitution, not by making up new words on its own.

[Zguy28]

It is a living document ONLY through the Amendment process. Not through re-reading or interpretation. If you don't like what it says on a topic, you need to get an Amendment to change it, not simply somebody to say "well that part isn't relevant in this day and age."

Hear hear!:cheers:

[gchwood]

If the founding fathers did not believe that it was living through interpretation and rereading they would have never established a Supreme Court as a check.


Wasn't the supreme court established in the constitution in 1787? And I think that John Marshall established it as a check, technically the constitution never gave it the right to declare things "unconstitutional"

[Burgold]

The Supreme Court acts as a check by ensuring that the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches comport with the actual words written in the Constitution, not by making up new words on its own.

or by making sure that the additions, assumptions, and reinterpretations of the Constitution jibes with their interpretation of the Constitution. You can not seriously argue that the Supreme Court lacks subjectivity in its interpretations and rulings, can you?

[gchwood]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section2





Article III



Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.



Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxi.html);--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.



In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.



The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.








So where does it say that the Supreme court has the right to rule anything "unconstituional?"

It doesn't say that THE Supreme Court can make law, but rather enforce the established law. John Marshall decided that he wanted to have more power than what was given to him as cheif justice

[LegionOfDoom]

or by making sure that the additions, assumptions, and reinterpretations of the Constitution jibes with their interpretation of the Constitution. You can not seriously argue that the Supreme Court lacks subjectivity in its interpretations and rulings, can you?

^^My only issue with the Supreme Court is the lifetime appointment.

[Mr. S]

Wasn't the supreme court established in the constitution in 1787? And I think that John Marshall established it as a check, technically the constitution never gave it the right to declare things "unconstitutional"

The Supreme Court was established with the Constitution, all 3 branches were. You are thinking of Marbury v. Madison, the courty case where Marshall established Judicial Review for the Supreme Court, giving it much of the overviewing power it has today. Marshall wasnt chief justice when the Constitution was written.

I think the founding fathers would be shocked to an extent. They would probably like the ammendment process. However, the Bill of Rights, apparently Madison did not want to include them cause he did not want people's rights limited to just those 10, hence why we have the 2 ammendments with enabling powers or whatever its called (I think 8 and 9?), one for people, and one for states.

Also, many of the founding fathers were just badasses if you think about it. Sam Adams just pursued war and beer, as did his buddy John Hancock. Also, though many were pastors and whatnot, many were also deists, such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, ive heard of more. Think of what they would think now.

[gchwood]

If a state decides to ban abortion, it does not have the right to overrule that (none of the judiary does at any level) if I state decides to legalize gay marraige, the judiciary does not have the righ tto over rule that. Their job is to enforce that law, it is the legislatures job to conform to the law and to enact law

[Air Force Cane]

the Founders were MUCH more religious than we are today- they would make the right wing look secular.

even Abraham Lincoln always talked about G-d, and scripture, and the role of religion in the Union.

the libs would FREAK OUT if the Founders were around today..

[Burgold]

I didn't say "unconstitiutional"... merely that it is a principle part of their job to interpret the Constitution to see if new ideas fit. At least that's what I meant. It is also their job, I believe to determine whether other's interpretations of the Constitution jibe with their understanding of the Constituion.

[techboy]

If the founding fathers did not believe that it was living through interpretation and rereading they would have never established a Supreme Court as a check.

They didn't. John Marshall and the Supreme Court established the concept of Judicial Review in 1803 in their ruling on Marbury vs. Madison. It's a logical extension of the overarching concept of seperation of powers, and has largely been respected by the Executive and Legislative Branches since then (one notable exception being in one particular case when Andrew Jackson told the court that if they wanted to enforce their order, they could raise their own army), but it is not a power specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

[gchwood]

The Supreme Court was established with the Constitution, all 3 branches were. You are thinking of Marbury v. Madison, the courty case where Marshall established Judicial Review for the Supreme Court, giving it much of the overviewing power it has today. Marshall wasnt chief justice when the Constitution was written.





:doh: sigh I know, The consitution established the judiciary in article 3 and the Marshall later on established Judicial review (which is truely unconstitutional), I know that he was not the chief justice when the constitiution was written.


His freelancing may be one of the most detrimental things to ever happen to this country, but of course he was just the first of many judges/justices that made laws from the bench

[gchwood]

I didn't say "unconstitiutional"... merely that it is a principle part of their job to interpret the Constitution to see if new ideas fit. At least that's what I meant. It is also their job, I believe to determine whether other's interpretations of the Constitution jibe with their understanding of the Constituion.


Not according to Article 3 section 2, unless you want to point me to somewhere else, they have been "unconstitutional" since John Marshall

[gchwood]

They didn't. John Marshall and the Supreme Court established the concept of Judicial Review in 1803 in their ruling on Marbury vs. Madison. It's a logical extension of the overarching concept of seperation of powers, and has largely been respected by the Executive and Legislative Branches since then (one notable exception being in one particular case when Andrew Jackson told the court that if they wanted to enforce their order, they could raise their own army), but it is not a power specifically enumerated in the Constitution.



And since the Judiciary enacted it, not the legislature, it is (drum roll please) unconstitutional for the supreme Court to rule anything Unconstitutional or to interpret the constitution. They are to rule on the law not create new law

[Burgold]

Not according to Article 3 section 2, unless you want to point me to somewhere else, they have been "unconstitutional" since John Marshall

Darn public school education failing me again :laugh:

I'll have to concede since you know this part of history better than me and seem to have the timeline down better too. Though, I still contend that the Supreme Court could not do its job without having to interpret the Constitution and make assumptions and inferences to be applied to new laws or cases brought before it.

And further, that since they are human their interpretations and rulings are guided sometimes by subjectivity and not a strict adherence only to the letters printed on the page. And if they have to use their wisdom, precedents, and intelligence to figure out how law A fits within pre-existing doctrine... some interpretation must occur.

[Darth Tater]

Wasn't the supreme court established in the constitution in 1787? And I think that John Marshall established it as a check, technically the constitution never gave it the right to declare things "unconstitutional"
True, but declaring an act of congress or the potus unlawful is not re-interpreting the documents. It is not evidence of the false concept of a 'living document' but rather an attempt to prevent that from happening. It failed because of the fact that power corrupts. The concept behind a supreme court with judicial review is to keep the rest of the government operating under the law, not to create law or extend the powers of a central government to were it does not belong.

[gchwood]

Darn public school education failing me again :laugh:

I'll have to concede since you know this part of history better than me and seem to have the timeline down better too. Though, I still contend that the Supreme Court could not do its job without having to interpret the Constitution and make assumptions and inferences to be applied to new laws or cases brought before it.

And further, that since they are human their interpretations and rulings are guided sometimes by subjectivity and not a strict adherence only to the letters printed on the page. And if they have to use their wisdom, precedents, and intelligence to figure out how law A fits within pre-existing doctrine... some interpretation must occur.



Sorry to have to break out the big guns, my wife and I both studied many semesters worht of Constitutional Law in college, her at a private Christian college and me at UVA and Shepherd College.


I don't have a problem with them "interpreting" laws, but creating new ones, such as saying that some states laws bannign abortion is unconstitutional is not part of their ability as legislature enacted the laws, and the bans are not in fact unconstitutional.

There job is to enforce law not create it. That is my biggest quam.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I would love to see some rouge lawyer challenge Marbury v Madison

It is very clear to those that have studied history what John Marshall was trying to do and did do

He gave himself power for over 30 years, well after the federalists were gone, and was still striking down federalist decisions into the 1820s

[Burgold]

lol. I think we were in a semantic fight and didn't realize it. What I was stuck on was the word "interpretation." I used the Supreme Court as an example at least one entity that has to make inferences or interpretations based on standing law or the Constitution in order to do its job. Mass presented the idea that there can be no interpreting the Constitution. That it says only what it says in the most literal sense. (Hope I am paraphrasing correctly) I believe differently. I think the Constitution and ammendments need to be interpreted, in part because new situations arise and though the constitution may not deal directly with these new situations it is still useful as a compass or guide.

P.S. I hate it when I sidetrack my own thread... :silly:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I actually agree that they would be alarmed, but I think some of what they would be alarmed at would shock us. Some of what they think is natural and fundamental, we would view as backwards. Thomas Jefferson, Adams, and the rest were absolute geniuses and for their time amazingly foresighted, but some of the underlying principles of the world they lived in (primarily in social issues-- who should be educated, who should be allowed to own property, who could find employment and of what sort, who should be allowed to vote, what constituted property) were wrong.

I am sure that there would be a large number of people who would be shocked and alarmed at the things the Founders would complain about in our current system. From professional politicians, election of traitors and murderers, and many other things. Personally, I'm more alligned with their way of looking at the world than the one we currently live under so I'd probably find the reactions very interesting.


Now the real genius behind what they wanted, what they risked their lives to create still holds. The ideas of a representitive government, free speech, free press, right to assemble, etc. They are still rock solid concepts.

I have to seriously disagree with some of that. Especially the "representative governmnent" part.

[Burgold]

You want a King? Or are you saying that our government is not really representitive anymore?

Also, given that many of the Founders were traitors (against England anyway) and believed in dueling and such... I am not sure that they would be offended by "traitors" being in elected positions. Life long politicians-- depends which Founding Father you talked to. If I remember correctly, some rather believed that they were a new aristocracy and ruling class.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You want a King? Or are you saying that our government is not really representitive anymore?

No King. Just a government Of the PEOPLE, For the PEOPLE and By the PEOPLE. We haven't had that in quite a while and it's something I really believe we need to get back to.


Also, given that many of the Founders were traitors (against England anyway) and believed in dueling and such... I am not sure that they would be offended by "traitors" being in elected positions. Life long politicians-- depends which Founding Father you talked to. If I remember correctly, some rather believed that they were a new aristocracy and ruling class.

They didn't govern the same country they'd been traitorous towards. That's a pretty big difference. As for dueling, it's something I'd like to see brought back into society. Yes, some of the Founders would be for the professional politicians. Just not many of them.

[Burgold]

Sadly, I probably agree that the representative part is not as real as it should be. I partly blame that on Americans though. Thirty percent voter turnouts is not scaring politicians enough, especially when they've got all those carrots from lobbiests and special interests enticing them.

[gchwood]

Here is my views as clear and consise as I can keep them, hopefully you all can understand what has gone wrong and why it is wrong.


1. there is nothing wrong with interpretation, however there isn't a whole lot within the constitution that is left up to interpretation. all powers that are not expressed in the constitution are supposed to be for the states to decide (amendment 10)

2. State and federal legislatures have the ability to create laws and amend the constitution, not the supreme court (Brown vs. the Board was illegal an unconstitutional desicion at its time)

3.The Judiciary's "powers" are the single biggest cause of fallout between people in the country. They have made some of these issues controversial.

4. The Federal Government has made itself way to big, the States should be doing the majority fo the stuff that the Federal goverment does.

I think that the founding fathers would be very upset in what they would see from this country. They fought to establish it, then we tore each other apart in the 1860s for economic reasons, now we are on the verge of doing the same thing but for political reasons. They would be sorry for founding this country in the first place.

[gchwood]

Sadly, I probably agree that the representative part is not as real as it should be. I partly blame that on Americans though. Thirty percent voter turnouts is not scaring politicians enough, especially when they've got all those carrots from lobbiests and special interests enticing them.


I agree with that! However not only that but there are so many people that are ignorant of what a person stands for, that they don't even know who to vote for, so they don't

[Darth Tater]

A government by the people was the last thing our FFs wanted. Governments derive their powers from consent of the people. It is a seperate entity, it is NOT the people and can be lawfully disolved if the government acts unlawfully (ours has at least since 1913) although the people will probably allow a government to act unlawfully as long as they perceive those actions to be beneficial to them or they believe that there are no better alternatives. A major reason for a judiciary with lifetime appointments is to prevent the rest of the government from doing what the people want regardless of Law, that seems a failed idea.

The FFs were highly influence by Cato's Republic. He identified three basic forms of government: democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy. We see all three represented in our federal government (though the monarchic and oligarchic aspects are given other names).

[Ford]

the Founders were MUCH more religious than we are today- they would make the right wing look secular.

even Abraham Lincoln always talked about G-d, and scripture, and the role of religion in the Union.

the libs would FREAK OUT if the Founders were around today..

Of course they were religious but they were also more tolerant of differing views of religion than the religious right and all the neo-cons of today. The majority of the most influential founding fathers weren't even really christians, they were deists like most enlightenment thinkers of the time. If you think freedom of religion, the establishment clause, etc were created for ****s and giggles ... you're wrong.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Sadly, I probably agree that the representative part is not as real as it should be. I partly blame that on Americans though. Thirty percent voter turnouts is not scaring politicians enough, especially when they've got all those carrots from lobbiests and special interests enticing them.

This we will agree on, somewhat. Personally I don't see it as the number/percentage of voters but rather the interest/knowledge level of the voters who are voting. I'll take 10% voter turnout if those 10% have done their homework. I don't want 90% of the unwashed (and unread) masses voting because that's just going to further the problems that we already have.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I agree with that! However not only that but there are so many people that are ignorant of what a person stands for, that they don't even know who to vote for, so they don't

If they don't know who the candidates are and what they stand for I DON'T WANT THEM VOTING!!!!!!!!!

I'm all for a 50 question multipl-choice exam at every polling place that every potential voter would have to pass (75%+) PRIOR to getting a ballot for just that reason.

[vinva]

A government by the people was the last thing our FFs wanted. Governments derive their powers from consent of the people.


Exactly...the founding fathers did not trust the majority of the populace to govern. We have never been (nor do I hope we ever are) a direct democracy.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Exactly...the founding fathers did not trust the majority of the populace to govern. We have never been (nor do I hope we ever are) a direct democracy.

Nor should they trust the majority of the population (then or now) to make decisions or govern themselves. The majority of people are uniformed dolts who have no concept of how the country is supposed to operate. Why the heck SHOULD they be allowed a say in the process?

[vinva]

Nor should they trust the majority of the population (then or now) to make decisions or govern themselves. The majority of people are uniformed dolts who have no concept of how the country is supposed to operate. Why the heck SHOULD they be allowed a say in the process?

I'm not the one arguing for a government "by the people"...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'm not the one arguing for a government "by the people"...

LOL. Obviously we have a different definition of the "People".

The Founding Fathers defined it as a government of informed and educated voters. In their day and age that meant White, Male, Landowners. When we advanced past "White, Male, Landowners", we unfortunately forgot to keep the "informed and educated" part. We now allow people who couldn't even tell you who they're voting for to cast a ballot. I remember the UPROAR when CT took the "party lever" off the voting machines.

We need to get back to that "informed and educated" concept before we run this ship totally aground and sink it permanently.

[vinva]

LOL. Obviously we have a different definition of the "People".

The Founding Fathers defined it as a government of informed and educated voters. In their day and age that meant White, Male, Landowners. When we advanced past "White, Male, Landowners", we unfortunately forgot to keep the "informed and educated" part. We now allow people who couldn't even tell you who they're voting for to cast a ballot. I remember the UPROAR when CT took the "party lever" off the voting machines.

We need to get back to that "informed and educated" concept before we run this ship totally aground and sink it permanently.

I would argue that we should work to "inform and educate" more people vice limiting the voting pool, but I'm sure disagree.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I would argue that we should work to "inform and educate" more people vice limiting the voting pool, but I'm sure you disagree.

Actually, since I'm all for having this testing done every time there is a vote, people would have the opportunity to prove they've gotten off their lazy backsides and gotten educated and informed every time they go to the polls. Just because you pass/fail the exam one time doesn't mean you will/won't pass/fail it the next time.

[Darth Tater]

Actually, our FFs may have understood that we are first self-ruled (morality), then ruled by the family (family values), then by the community (free market) and finally by the political government. Most people never even get to the point were political government really concerns them except that it may attempt to flip this in which case revolution is not just a right but a moral obligation.

[AlexRS]

Reading a couple of threads, people referring back to enormous wisdom of our living documents and the men and the ideals that they used to form it. It made me wonder. How many of their practices or beliefs would we today consider unAmerican or unethical. The most obvious one is the tolerance or active participation in slavery, but I just wonder would the Founding Father's recognize America today. I believe the core principles remain, but would their vision of America and our vision of Ameica be radically different?
I am sure they would recognize it. After all, we are a product of their labour.

They put this country together before industrialization, electricity, communism, etc. Their principles survived fairly well considering everything that happened since then.

However, I am sure they would find many current practices very questionable. I doubt they would pass judgement on them (after all, those practices appearing is a natural process), but they would certainly look back at what they have done to try and see if they could have prevented them somehow.

Such practices would surely include centralized control over information, lack of public debate on issues, influence of businesses on the government, etc.

[Darth Tater]

AlexRS,

Unless you are referring to Marxism, and your use of lowercase makes me believe you are not, communism goes back at least to the 14th century. By other names, maybe several thousand years. Its pretty old and probably harkens back to our hunter/gatherer days before it was recognized that the best way to order society was based on voluntary interactions as opposed to distribution to the biggest and baddest.

[AlexRS]

AlexRS,

Unless you are referring to Marxism, and your use of lowercase makes me believe you are not, communism goes back at least to the 14th century. By other names, maybe several thousand years. Its pretty old and probably harkens back to our hunter/gatherer days before it was recognized that the best way to order society was based on voluntary interactions as opposed to distribution to the biggest and baddest.
Thanks for the correction - I should have been more specific. I was talking about the Cold War, not the idea of communism per se. It seems the Cold War played a huge role in shaping our Foreign Policy and the way we came to look at the world outside US...

Come to think of it, Founding Fathers never even had to deal with the term "World War"...

hmm, that whole dependency on oil thing probably changed things around as well.