Everyone in the United States likes to back up one of their political arguments with what would the Founding Fathers do. And you know, I've heard it for the last time without forming some pretty distinct thoughts on the matter.
Raising the ghosts of the Founders to support your political argument is just flat out stupid. Here's why:
1) They're freaking dead. They've all been dead for about 200 years. That means they're not around to a) see enough of the 21st century and the issues and the rationale behind the issues to even form a well informed opinion on those issues, and b) they're not around to say, no dude, I wouldn't have said that at all. You're imposing your views on someone who wouldn't have even understood what your views are.
2) They're not some monolithic group of men who all agreed on everything. What's the point of having a representative republic at all at that point? Might as well just appoint one of them supreme leader for life, if they all thought the same. No, in fact, they had a hard time agreeing on anything. Why do you think it took 80 some odd years and us splitting in two and going to war with each other in order to get rid of slavery? Do you think everyone agreed on slavery in the 1780s? Some of the nastiest political campaigns in the history of the United States were all fought by the Founders. They were jerks, and they hated each other. Modern political campaigns look like a tickle fight in comparison. Matter of fact, in order to get the Constitution written, they all had to get drunk.
3) They're not gods. This isn't the freakin' Dominion on Star Trek. (Though a shapeshifting Washington who had to sleep in a bucket would be kinda cool.) They were men. Just because there's a mythology built around them doesn't mean they were special, or that we should appeal to their authority over our own ability to reason. You know, especially because they're dead and would have no clue what to make of anything you and your debating partner are talking about if you hopped in a time machine to get them to clarify whose side they would choose.
4) Older isn't necessarily better. If you think it is, feel free to purchase a phonograph and a horse and buggy. There's no such thing as the good old days or simpler times. That's just nostalgia. And in this case, it's nostalgia for an era before your great-grandparents were even born.
5) The Founders aren't necessarily The Framers. The Founders are the upstarts who stirred up rebellion and had the idea that the Colonies should be independent, semi-democratic. The Framers are the ones who drafted the Constitution because the Founders fucked up the first system of government in the United States. Let me repeat that- the Founders made a big old mess that the Framers had to clean up. Some of the Founders were also Framers, but not all Founders were Framers and not all Framers were Founders. So the Framers were plenty aware that their new document was also probably flawed, and made it possible to fix their mistakes as we went along. So if there's anything that we can be reasonably sure of what the Framers would think about modern day politics is to leave them out of it and figure it out on our own, since we're supposed to have improved the Constitution from the version they gave us. That's why we have more than 10 amendments.
So, who gives a shit what the Founders would think? They were looking up to us. Stop living in the past and start thinking about the present. If you can't support your political argument without using necromancy, then you don't actually have an argument, and need a clueless ghost to talk for you.
It used to be that I figured the Framers must have been remarkably smart, for giving us a Constitution that has survived through not one but TWO major technological revolutions (industrial and information) since it was originally created. But the more I have been paying attention, the less firmly I hold on to that assumption.
As it turns out, the Constitution has been completely ignored most of the time, except in matters of general form and function of the government. Whenever it is inconvenient to abide by, say, the 4th Amendment, it turns out all you need is a team of lawyers to come up with a classified legal brief explaining why the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, and presto! the 4th Amendment is irrelevant.
So the Framers (and by extension the Founders) weren't really mega-geniuses at all. They were marginally more effective than the bunch of useless leeches currently occupying DC, but there's no excuse to elevate them to Demi-God status just so we can avoid thinking our own way out of tough situations.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 10:16:47 PM
It used to be that I figured the Framers must have been remarkably smart, for giving us a Constitution that has survived through not one but TWO major technological revolutions (industrial and information) since it was originally created. But the more I have been paying attention, the less firmly I hold on to that assumption.
As it turns out, the Constitution has been completely ignored most of the time, except in matters of general form and function of the government. Whenever it is inconvenient to abide by, say, the 4th Amendment, it turns out all you need is a team of lawyers to come up with a classified legal brief explaining why the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, and presto! the 4th Amendment is irrelevant.
So the Framers (and by extension the Founders) weren't really mega-geniuses at all. They were marginally more effective than the bunch of useless leeches currently occupying DC, but there's no excuse to elevate them to Demi-God status just so we can avoid thinking our own way out of tough situations.
Exactly. Though, I wouldn't say they were marginally more effective. Well, maybe they were. They did manage to agree on the Constitution in the first place. Even though booze was required. Maybe we should get Congress tanked, lock the doors and see what happens.
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:27:35 PM
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZI4BI44.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MoeSkkb.png)
:lulz:
I'll have to use these in the future.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:27:35 PM
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZI4BI44.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MoeSkkb.png)
:lulz: beautiful
I've slowly over time realized the constitution isn't the document I was led to believe in school.
Everyone loves the constitution when it supports their position. When it doesn't, it becomes outdated and 'the founders could never have foreseen a need for __________.
Here's the funny thing about it too- the message is simplistic as well. I also think it's absurd for the government to force you to buy something. He, of course is taking the talking points typical of it, my take is, if the government is going to make everyone have something, than it should automatically be provided by the government to everyone. He thinks health insurance is something to be earned, I think it's a basic need in modern society, especially where preventative medicine is the best medicine.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:50:49 PM
Here's the funny thing about it too- the message is simplistic as well. I also think it's absurd for the government to force you to buy something. He, of course is taking the talking points typical of it, my take is, if the government is going to make everyone have something, than it should automatically be provided by the government to everyone. He thinks health insurance is something to be earned, I think it's a basic need in modern society, especially where preventative medicine is the best medicine.
This is also my position on the topic. Health care is a human right, and contrary to all the talking points, it isn't just for humanitarian, bleeding-heart reasons. It's also practical: with a healthy labor force that isn't threatened with financial ruin if they fall out of health, you have more productive workers and stronger customers, both of which benefit the economy. What's not to like?
On the other hand, if you're going to tell me I must have this thing, that's fine, but don't make my only option to purchase it from a for-profit company that can only make a profit by doing the
opposite of what people are paying them for. It's a conflict of interest if I ever saw one.
Well, it's essentially an appeal to authority.
Which makes it just as fallacious as every other appeal to authority in history.
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 10, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
Well, it's essentially an appeal to authority.
Which makes it just as fallacious as every other appeal to authority in history.
That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson would have
expected an Englishman to say.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 10, 2013, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:27:35 PM
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZI4BI44.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MoeSkkb.png)
:lulz: beautiful
I've slowly over time realized the constitution isn't the document I was led to believe in school.
Everyone loves the constitution when it supports their position. When it doesn't, it becomes outdated and 'the founders could never have foreseen a need for __________.
That goes for any nebulous source of authority. But the Constitution is an all to common one.
One of my favorites are the misinterpretations of free speech.
"Someone called me stupid/fired me/told me to shut the fuck up because I said something stupid. That's a violation of my first amendment rights!"
"What about theirs?"
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 11:02:34 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on August 10, 2013, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:27:35 PM
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZI4BI44.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MoeSkkb.png)
:lulz: beautiful
I've slowly over time realized the constitution isn't the document I was led to believe in school.
Everyone loves the constitution when it supports their position. When it doesn't, it becomes outdated and 'the founders could never have foreseen a need for __________.
That goes for any nebulous source of authority. But the Constitution is an all to common one.
One of my favorites are the misinterpretations of free speech.
"Someone called me stupid/fired me/told me to shut the fuck up because I said something stupid. That's a violation of my first amendment rights!"
"What about theirs?"
Also, I think the cult of the Founders has sprung up exactly
because the Constitution itself doesn't support many of the opinions out there. For example the Constitution doesn't have a single thing to say about religion other than "Congress can't touch it" and "There can be no religious test for public office." Theists have to justify their power mongering somehow, and since the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, they have to build up the people who
wrote the Constitution, or fought to establish American independence, so they can appeal to that authority instead. Same goes for a lot of "git yer manger off my city hall lawn" anti-theists, by the way.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 11:02:34 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on August 10, 2013, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:27:35 PM
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZI4BI44.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MoeSkkb.png)
:lulz: beautiful
I've slowly over time realized the constitution isn't the document I was led to believe in school.
Everyone loves the constitution when it supports their position. When it doesn't, it becomes outdated and 'the founders could never have foreseen a need for __________.
That goes for any nebulous source of authority. But the Constitution is an all to common one.
One of my favorites are the misinterpretations of free speech.
"Someone called me stupid/fired me/told me to shut the fuck up because I said something stupid. That's a violation of my first amendment rights!"
"What about theirs?"
Also, I think the cult of the Founders has sprung up exactly because the Constitution itself doesn't support many of the opinions out there. For example the Constitution doesn't have a single thing to say about religion other than "Congress can't touch it" and "There can be no religious test for public office." Theists have to justify their power mongering somehow, and since the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, they have to build up the people who wrote the Constitution, or fought to establish American independence, so they can appeal to that authority instead. Same goes for a lot of "git yer manger off my city hall lawn" anti-theists, by the way.
Certainly. The religion of the Founders is always the same as your own. Because, again, they are some monolithic force of nature that all agreed on everything. Even though some Founders had some really choice anti-religion quotes, and other Founders liked to talk about God, which was of course a vague deist god a good portion of the time.
Can I add this to my Big Words backlog?
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 10:27:35 PM
This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/971068_535825266482666_59956872_n.jpg)
And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.
What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZI4BI44.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MoeSkkb.png)
Straight up. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 10, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
Well, it's essentially an appeal to authority.
Which makes it just as fallacious as every other appeal to authority in history.
'
:lulz: Oh goddamn the meta just broke my everything. I am not sure I will laugh again ever.
Gogira- go for it. This is one that doesnt even need attribution since its. Just... Common bloody sense
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 06:18:10 AM
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 10, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
Well, it's essentially an appeal to authority.
Which makes it just as fallacious as every other appeal to authority in history.
'
:lulz: Oh goddamn the meta just broke my everything. I am not sure I will laugh again ever.
I think the meta is lost on me
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 02:30:47 AM
Gogira- go for it. This is one that doesnt even need attribution since its. Just... Common bloody sense
Common sense is surprinsingly uncommon. Actual thinking is rarer still.
Carlos/Queen G - Could we get the appeal to authority bit tagged after the dead ghost stinger?
I think it'll be great with a statement to that effect as the kicker.
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.
QuoteJust imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.
They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.
The fact that something isn't perfect does not imply that it is the cause of your problems.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 13, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
QuoteJust imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.
They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.
:?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:34:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:34:04 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:37:27 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 13, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
QuoteJust imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.
They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.
:?
Bad joke. I was referring to "V for Vendetta"
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 13, 2013, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:37:27 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 13, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
QuoteJust imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.
They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.
:?
Bad joke. I was referring to "V for Vendetta"
Oh, sorry. Didn't catch it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:41:50 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:34:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:41:50 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:34:04 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: V3X on August 13, 2013, 09:10:07 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:41:50 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 08:34:04 PM
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."
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 09:32:03 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 09:26:35 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 13, 2013, 09:10:07 PM
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.
Quote from: V3X on August 13, 2013, 09:59:22 PM
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:
QuoteEach 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.
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".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 10:30:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 10:31:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 10:30:06 PM
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.
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.
GUESS WHAT'S FINALLY DONE!
(http://i.imgur.com/AoCPc52.jpg)
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 02, 2013, 06:08:56 AM
GUESS WHAT'S FINALLY DONE!
(http://i.imgur.com/AoCPc52.jpg)
Gods, that's beautiful.
May I share the final product as a graphic on FB?
Absolutely! It's yours, remember? :lulz:
I wanted to do a color version, but I got distracted by the animated womp request.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 03, 2013, 04:41:14 AM
Absolutely! It's yours, remember? :lulz:
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.
Nope, only silly people leave useful exif data. Go nuts :)
I'll make sure to get you the hard copies when Junky ships 'em, too.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 03, 2013, 04:50:21 AM
Nope, only silly people leave useful exif data. Go nuts :)
I'll make sure to get you the hard copies when Junky ships 'em, too.
Cool cool. I figured that you wouldn't leave traces, but I'm a silly person, and wanted to make sure.
COLOR!
(http://i.imgur.com/n95xLZr.jpg)
Hot damn!
The background image is off wikicommons, so that should be 100% kopyleft-safe, too :)
Last chance on typos for this before I do the save and upload dance.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 06:35:24 PM
Last chance on typos for this before I do the save and upload dance.
I'm satisfied with it.
QG, hold back on more full colour ones until I get this out. Not sure how this thing will handle bigger than A2 with that much ink. May need to acquire different paper if we're doing more of them
Ok, I'll still be excited to see this one even at A3