Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?

[Hans Blaster]

I don’t know either. Everyone could have ignored me. Strange.

I tried. The software won't permit it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In my opinion, the biggest mistake they made was to combine the duties of head of state and chief executive officer. I understand why they did it that way, they made their reasons clear but it has had unintended consequences in that it gives too much authority to the executive branch.
Imagine how England would look if the King was also the Prime Minister. It also forces us to elect a single person for two very different jobs. which is why we so often have Presidents who can't seem to do both at once.

The PM still does all of the important things associated with the "head of state" roll of the POTUS -- international relations, etc. Those monarchs just do the pointless ceremonial nonsense.

 

[BCP1928]

I don’t know either. Everyone could have ignored me. Strange.

Not so strange. Christian Nationalists are regarded these days with considerable suspicion and distrust. You had to know that your comments would not go unremarked.

 

[Hammster]

I tried. The software won't permit it.

You didn’t have to reply, though.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You didn’t have to reply, though.

:ignore:

 

[Always in His Presence]

Sure. Like with abortion.

Yup. Free exchange of opinions is key to debate. And being forceful is no imposing. Even if you want to see All those babies die.

 

[rambot]

Yup. Free exchange of opinions is key to debate. And being forceful is no imposing. Even if you want to see All those babies die.

Well, except when the right to medical care for women was subjected to other people's religious preferences.

That is what the "areligious" complain about...and rightfully so. I can be on your side with what is happening on this thread re: "nobody is mandating anything"....but in the reality of the politics, yes, they are.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Well, except when the right to medical care for women was subjected to other people's religious preferences.

That is what the "areligious" complain about...and rightfully so. I can be on your side with what is happening on this thread re: "nobody is mandating anything"....but in the reality of the politics, yes, they are.

It happens both ways - like having to use certain pro nouns or loosing your career - or allowing men to use woman's bathrooms.

It is part of the ebbs and flows of a free society. I don't agree with you - but I defend your right to say it. There are some Democrats that should give that a try, it is freeing you can hear opposing viewpoints and still maintain your personal standards.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Decision in Philadelphia - The Constitutional Convention of 1787
Taken from the notes of James Madison, a member of that convention, it is very readable written for the reader with an interest in American politics. Many questions asked here can be answered in this book.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Constitutional Convention used the words of their day to convey a specific meaning to the Constitution and Congress used similar words to define the 12 submitted Amendments for ratification. Where do we get off re-interpreting what they 'meant' instead of what they really say? If you don't like an amendment modify, change or override it with another; don't twist it into something by legal challenges for which it was not intended.

 

[rambot]

The Constitutional Convention used the words of their day to convey a specific meaning to the Constitution and Congress used similar words to define the 12 submitted Amendments for ratification. Where do we get off re-interpreting what they 'meant' instead of what they really say? If you don't like an amendment modify, change or override it with another; don't twist it into something by legal challenges for which it was not intended.

I think that describes gun safety advocates frustration with what has happenned with ammendment 2.

Unless, of COURSE, that situation is different.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Totally. What a wreck the 2A is, just in terms of comprehensibility.

It is quite plain when you read it in the understanding of 1787.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I think that describes gun safety advocates frustration with what has happenned with ammendment 2.

Unless, of COURSE, that situation is different.

Not sure I follow......

 

[durangodawood]

It is quite plain when you read it in the understanding of 1787.

I have doubts. Plenty other parts of the const are comprehensible. And Ive read other English language writings from the era that get their point across plainly. This isnt Chaucer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is quite plain when you read it in the understanding of 1787.

Of course it is. The right of regulated members of the organized militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are we tho?

No, we are not.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course it is. The right of regulated members of the organized militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

No no no! Its not a conditional clause. Its a standalone finding that is just positioned so it reads like a conditional clause - like they used to do all the time in 1787.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I have doubts. Plenty other parts of the const are comprehensible. And Ive read other English language writings from the era that get their point across plainly. This isnt Chaucer.

What about it do you find not comprehensible?

 

[keith99]

The answer regarding near perfection was answered before the Constitution was written! NO! After all they were basically the same men who wrote The Articles of Confederation.

But they did a lot better than the people nit picking on this thread would do, even with the advantage of hindsight.

 

[civilwarbuff]

just positioned so it reads like a conditional clause - like they used to do all the time in 1787.

Examples please.....from a legal perspective please since we are talking about the meaning of a law....