Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?

[Hammster]

I just asked him and he said you are wrong. Imagine that. But I've got no dog in this fight (or is that a Freudian typo?). I'll let you two sort it out.

I don’t need to sort it out. Scripture talks a lot about false gods.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t need to sort it out. Scripture talks a lot about false gods.

Hang on. I'll just check with my chum. And...he says the same thing about the Upanishads.

 

[Hammster]

Hang on. I'll just check with my chum. And...he says the same thing about the Upanishads.

Okay.

 

[zelosravioli]

It seems there is a faction of people who hold the Founding Fathers up to be almost gods (but certainly some kind of divine representative). So much so that they figure a 240ish yr old legal document is as applicable in today's culture as in one from that long ago. I'm curious, is there anything you think that Founding Fathers really should have thought a bit harder on. So I'm thinking problems that they REALLY should have been able to foresee and not empowered...

I havent seen the 'Federalist papers' mentioned yet in this thread... they show the extensive thinking behind the founding documents, that there were differing views on everything, but that they finally came together on what we have - is practically miraculous. In that context, we think of them as amazing if anything, not perfect.

I believe most scholarly patriots understand the founding fathers did an extensive amount of arguing and debate while constructing our constitution and then the bill of rights. What they wrote were primarily warnings of and how it could all go wrong, if certain principles weren't understood or respected, that insight, is amazing. They dealt with these practical problems of Govt so extensively so as a whole it is all practically prophetic and nearly miraculous.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I havent seen the 'Federalist papers' mentioned yet in this thread...

I almost mentioned #78 on the independent judiciary when somebody said:

IMO, the founders presumed that an American political party would never use lawfare to target political opponents.

So I may as well do so now:

It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.

 

[zelosravioli]

Great article essentialsaltes.... in reading through it, i was going to try to say something to sound intelligent, but i will only post the following, that stood out from it, as a for instance, to remind the OP how foreseeing the original writers were in their thinking....

"... Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject." #78

 

[7thKeeper]

The Second Amendment (and the First, and probably several others) could have benefitted from a little more definition and clarity.

I'm not asserting I know what they meant, but there's enough argument about it that they could have nipped in the bud with a little effort.

Case in point about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Pommer]

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

Or we could scrap the entire thing and start over from scratch?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Or we could scrap the entire thing and start over from scratch?

And in todays political environment you are certain that we can do better than what we already have?

 

[durangodawood]

And in todays political environment you are certain that we can do better than what we already have?

Right. In this respect I'm a bit conservative.

I have an adventurous / revolutionary aspect to my personality that favors tear it all up. But the hardheaded side cant ignore the probability of a disastrous outcome. I'd favor incremental change - if it werent functionally impossible.

 

[Richard T]

It seems there is a faction of people who hold the Founding Fathers up to be almost gods (but certainly some kind of divine representative). So much so that they figure a 240ish yr old legal document is as applicable in today's culture as in one from that long ago.


I'm curious, is there anything you think that Founding Fathers really should have thought a bit harder on. So I'm thinking problems that they REALLY should have been able to foresee and not empowered.

For example (and I am NOT a historian so please feel free to eviscerate and enlighten me)....I don't understand how a judge appointed by a president would be permitted to try that same president in their court room. How is it that this did not have some kind of stop gap measure?

Thoughts? Other examples? Keeping in mind it I'm looking MOSTLY for examples that are not explicitly from our times but are problems that could have arisen back then (ie..nothing about AI...that kinda thing)

The Anti-Federalists should have got more influence. The articles of Confederation were not working so a stronger central government was put forward. Some restrictions remained but the Federal Government now has too much power due to the commerce clause and the Supremacy clause. They missed term limits, and simply gave too much power to Federal government. Luckily the bill fo rights got promised so that more states would adopt the Constitution. There was no income tax, they got that right as well, but those that voted for that amendment many years later should have given it restrictions. They never imagined either a huge national debt though some warned on paper money and that would have prevented this debt and inflation. "George Washington wrote to Thomas Jefferson on Aug. 1, 1786, “Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.” “Paper is poverty,” Jefferson in turn observed in 1788."
So is it outdated. Absolutely not. I would say the original is likely better except for the failure to include more civil rights which in their day was impossible because it needed southern states to ratify.

 

[zelosravioli]

The Constitution is a body of laws, restrictions, controls and regulations - if you want to change it, ask yourselves, are the revisions you want to make, do they give more freedoms to citizens, more restrictions on Govt, or more control to government over citizens?
I understand there are many grey areas, but what do you want to 'change' for instance?

 

[Zaha Torte]

I'd like to be excused, please.

God bless you. Truly.

 

[Zaha Torte]

We’re even “allowed” to scrap the entire thing and begin anew, (should it come to that).

I pray that it never does.

 

[Zaha Torte]

There is no evidence for the supernatural.

I do not think that term applies - but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Except for the grip that political parties have - since the process for amendment now has to go through the parties, essentially. They will never tolerate any amendments that diminish their duopoly.

How would you propose Amendments be passed?

 

[durangodawood]

How would you propose Amendments be passed?

Dont have a plan yet. Any ideas?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Dont have a plan yet. Any ideas?

I think Congress is our best bet. Our elected officials. Then SCOTUS weighs in. I don't know.

 

[JSRG]

I havent seen the 'Federalist papers' mentioned yet in this thread... they show the extensive thinking behind the founding documents, that there were differing views on everything, but that they finally came together on what we have - is practically miraculous. In that context, we think of them as amazing if anything, not perfect.

I believe most patriots believe the founding fathers did an extensive amount of arguing and debate while constructing our constitution and then the bill of rights. What they wrote were primarily warnings of and how it could all go wrong, so extensively so as to be practically prophetic and nearly miraculous.

One should be a bit cautious in regards to the Federalist Papers as a source of the thinking behind the Constitution. There is a lot of great information in it, but we must remember something important: The Federalist Papers were essentially a work of propaganda. The whole reason they were written was because there was a big debate in New York about whether to ratify the Constitution (the final vote was very close, 30 to 27), and some people were distributing pamphlets arguing against the Constitution. So the Federalist Papers, which went through the Constitution point by point in offering explanations for everything in it, were written and distributed by James Madison/Alexander Hamilton/John Jay to argue that the Constitution was a great idea. The purpose of them was not to explain why anything was chosen, but to argue for what was already chosen.

For an example, James Madison bluntly states in his notes from the Constitutional Convention that a major reason the electoral college was used to elect the President rather than a popular vote was because otherwise the slaveholding states would be greatly disadvantaged (his exact words in his notes: "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.") In the section of The Federalist Papers explaining the reasoning for the electoral college, this rationale is never mentioned, probably because it'd be of little to no help in convincing people in New York.

Again, there's a whole lot of great information in the Federalist Papers. But one must never forget that their purpose was not to elucidate people as to why things were chosen, but to argue for what was already chosen (though obviously, much elucidation was accomplished in the process).

 

[jayem]

They should have emphasized that we are under the authority of Jesus Christ.

Good thing they didn't. As Blaise Pascal (a devout Catholic) wrote: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”