Thoughts on the Founders

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I like the Constitution for its forward-thinking and its pragmatism. I think it's mostly irreparably outdated though, given that 21st-Century society would probably be pretty close to completely unrecognizable to 18th-Century politicians. Again, the Constitution was written prior to the Industrial Revolution, and we're well into the Information Revolution now. That's two complete shifts in our fundamental ideas about what it means to be Human, and we still have this 200-year-old document trying to lead the way. It's a valiant effort and certainly it's done a far better job of it than any reasonable person would have expected it to when it was written. But the fact is it should be time to rewrite it from scratch.

The problem with that -- and the reason why I continue to support it -- is that humanity in general and Americans in particular are hardly up to the moral or intellectual task of an undertaking like that these days.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like the Constitution for its forward-thinking and its pragmatism. I think it's mostly irreparably outdated though, given that 21st-Century society would probably be pretty close to completely unrecognizable to 18th-Century politicians. Again, the Constitution was written prior to the Industrial Revolution, and we're well into the Information Revolution now. That's two complete shifts in our fundamental ideas about what it means to be Human, and we still have this 200-year-old document trying to lead the way. It's a valiant effort and certainly it's done a far better job of it than any reasonable person would have expected it to when it was written. But the fact is it should be time to rewrite it from scratch.

The problem with that -- and the reason why I continue to support it -- is that humanity in general and Americans in particular are hardly up to the moral or intellectual task of an undertaking like that these days.

They weren't then, either.  But I don't see much of it as being outdated.  I can't think of a single clause that doesn't make sense today.

Also, it is my opinion that it was written vaguely on purpose so that it would STAY relevant, and so that people would argue about it for a few centuries.

I mean, that's what I would do.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I view the founders as some sort of anchor that we're tethered to.  Were they perfect in real life?  Of course not.  But that myth of perfection, of total wisdom, is what keeps us from wandering too far afield.  Of course, we cheerfully ignore the awful shit like the bits they wrote about slavery...Which we probably SHOULD ignore for this purpose, those sections having been amended out.

Because as hilarious as the push-pull concerning the "founders' intent", and despite the horrible reality, the simple fact of the matter is, without the constitution, we'd be a theocracy by now.  No matter how bad things are, no matter how fucking funny it gets, it would be 50 times worse without the check on popular opinion imposed by the document.

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

Most certainly. Having a document spelling out how the government functions is a very important thing. But I think we can still have them as an anchor and be able to recognize that asking what they would think about, say gay marriage, is a ridiculous thing to ask, and a question that shouldn't be asked.

Having read Jefferson's letters, I imagine that he wouldn't give a shit in the first place.  Not that he'd be able to say so publicly, of course.

But you are correct.  Simple fact is, Gay marriage is a 9th amendment issue and a 14th amendment issue, and a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why the constitution is BOTH a living document and a statement of intent.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, and the assumption that it DOES is what's distorted American politics since the 1930s.

Yeah, there's definitely some sort of belief that the Constitution is a quantum particle. It's both things until a particular issue comes up and then it magically chooses one or the other. Of course, it's still both but the emphasis depends on where you fall on an issue.

This is where the funny stuff is.  In the constitution's history, the only change made to LIMIT rights was amendment XVIII.  And we see how well THAT worked.  So when assholes start hollering that we need an amendment to keep the Gays from marrying or to abolish the 2nd amendment, I just start laughing.  Assholes, one and all...Because the LAST thing ANYONE actually wants is for the constitution to be used as a means of oppression.

By "anyone", I mean "Anyone other than Pat Robertson and his crowd", of course.

Maybe the next amendment should be "Constitutional amendments are not meant to deprive or limit rights."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Maybe the next amendment should be "Constitutional amendments are not meant to deprive or limit rights."

Problem:  According to article V, any amendment can override a prior amendment, as amendments are equal in authority to both each other and the main body.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I like the Constitution for its forward-thinking and its pragmatism. I think it's mostly irreparably outdated though, given that 21st-Century society would probably be pretty close to completely unrecognizable to 18th-Century politicians. Again, the Constitution was written prior to the Industrial Revolution, and we're well into the Information Revolution now. That's two complete shifts in our fundamental ideas about what it means to be Human, and we still have this 200-year-old document trying to lead the way. It's a valiant effort and certainly it's done a far better job of it than any reasonable person would have expected it to when it was written. But the fact is it should be time to rewrite it from scratch.

The problem with that -- and the reason why I continue to support it -- is that humanity in general and Americans in particular are hardly up to the moral or intellectual task of an undertaking like that these days.

They weren't then, either.  But I don't see much of it as being outdated.  I can't think of a single clause that doesn't make sense today.

Also, it is my opinion that it was written vaguely on purpose so that it would STAY relevant, and so that people would argue about it for a few centuries.

I mean, that's what I would do.

It's not that there's anything that doesn't still make sense, but there's a lot that should be in there that isn't. Of course, that was the idea behind the whole process of amending the Constitution, which worked out well enough for about 180 years, and then the political system became such a gigantic god damn clusterfuck that nothing can get done on that kind of scale anymore. There are also whole segments of the population now that didn't exist 230 years ago, like the middle class. The Framers didn't envision a world where Corporations would be considered "people," where politicians would operate like subsidiaries of those corporations, where minorities and women would be equal in the eyes of the law, where entire cities could be wiped out with a single bomb, where surveillance of almost every moment of every person's life would be possible (let alone argued in favor of by someone), where people could become destitute from having to visit a doctor, or any number of other realities that are so ubiquitous now that it's hard not to assume that it's always been that way.

Most of the Constitution is concerned with the form and function of the federal government, but even in this routine capacity it has been circumvented and neutralized in a lot of ways. It takes a "supermajority" to get anything done in the Senate because of filibusters, a concept that doesn't exist in the Constitution. Political parties themselves are absent from the Constitution because the original idea was that people would elect representatives, not blind ideologies.

It isn't a useless charter, but I certainly think a better one that's more suited to modern society could be devised.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's not that there's anything that doesn't still make sense, but there's a lot that should be in there that isn't. Of course, that was the idea behind the whole process of amending the Constitution, which worked out well enough for about 180 years, and then the political system became such a gigantic god damn clusterfuck that nothing can get done on that kind of scale anymore. There are also whole segments of the population now that didn't exist 230 years ago, like the middle class. The Framers didn't envision a world where Corporations would be considered "people," where politicians would operate like subsidiaries of those corporations, where minorities and women would be equal in the eyes of the law, where entire cities could be wiped out with a single bomb, where surveillance of almost every moment of every person's life would be possible (let alone argued in favor of by someone), where people could become destitute from having to visit a doctor, or any number of other realities that are so ubiquitous now that it's hard not to assume that it's always been that way.

Most of the Constitution is concerned with the form and function of the federal government, but even in this routine capacity it has been circumvented and neutralized in a lot of ways. It takes a "supermajority" to get anything done in the Senate because of filibusters, a concept that doesn't exist in the Constitution. Political parties themselves are absent from the Constitution because the original idea was that people would elect representatives, not blind ideologies.

It isn't a useless charter, but I certainly think a better one that's more suited to modern society could be devised.

Actually, fillibusters are covered under article I, Section 5, clause 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for
disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

The founders believed, I think, that each generation would have to either work this sort of shit out for themselves, or die of sheer stupidity. 

And the blind ideology thing was there before the constitution.  Hell, the argument about the constitution itself was a pack of partisans on two sides.

Short version:  It was never intended to be perfect.  It was intended to work.  And in this imperfect world, it more or less works well enough.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Matter of fact, I have yet to have someone mention something that the constitution doesn't allow for.

Not saying it isn't possible, just saying it hasn't happened.  The document is vastly more complex than a casual read would imply.

Which is one of the things that makes it funny when teabaggers holler shit about "reading the constitution".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Matter of fact, I have yet to have someone mention something that the constitution doesn't allow for.

Not saying it isn't possible, just saying it hasn't happened.  The document is vastly more complex than a casual read would imply.

Which is one of the things that makes it funny when teabaggers holler shit about "reading the constitution".

Well, someone else already read it for them. They don't have to.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Matter of fact, I have yet to have someone mention something that the constitution doesn't allow for.

Not saying it isn't possible, just saying it hasn't happened.  The document is vastly more complex than a casual read would imply.

Which is one of the things that makes it funny when teabaggers holler shit about "reading the constitution".

Well, someone else already read it for them. They don't have to.

It's one of those "everyone knows" things.  "Stands to reason", so to speak.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree with Dok. The constitution is not a perfect document, but its generic enough to apply pretty well to most, if not all situations that government 'must' deal with. I think the biggest debates come from areas where some group 'wants' the government to deal with something.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

GUESS WHAT'S FINALLY DONE!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

GUESS WHAT'S FINALLY DONE!

Gods, that's beautiful.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

May I share the final product as a graphic on FB?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Absolutely! It's yours, remember? 

I wanted to do a color version, but I got distracted by the animated womp request.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Absolutely! It's yours, remember? 

I wanted to do a color version, but I got distracted by the animated womp request.

Well, yes, but your graphic. I know you're a bit protective of your identity, and I wasn't sure if the link would be traceable back to you.