« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Beto Oâ��Rourke has stunningly suggested that the United States should ditch its own Constitution. 

By: Zimbler0 in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Sat, 19 Jan 19 4:41 PM | 254 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21916 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 21912 by kathy_s16)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

>>>
(1) that the framers’ constitution represented values that Americans should abhor or at least reject today;
>>>

Further down they point out slavery and lack of womens suffrage . . .
The Constitution is obviously relevant because of the mechanism for Amending
the Constitution. Abolishing slavery and granting the right for everyone
to vote.
Zim.

>>>
(2) that there are parts of the constitution America is stuck with but that are impossible to defend based on contemporary values;
>>>

Again. That is why we have Amendments. And Amendments are not
easy to pass because 'flavor of the day' is not how the country
should be ran.
Zim.

>>>
(3) that for the most part the Constitution is irrelevant to the current political design of the nation;
>>>

Now that is just plain Stupid. We still have the President, Congress,
and Supreme Court, do we not? Or is the author trying to abolish
the Electoral College - a mechanism I believe was put in specifically
to keep the rights of the smaller States from being stomped upon by
the larger more populous States.
Zim.

>>>
and (4) that the rights that are protected today are mostly a result of the evolution of political attitudes, not of courts using the Constitution to uphold them.
>>>

AS I recall, one of the Founding Fathers once wrote that "All Men Are Created Equal" . . .
And it looks to me like this is the direction the
country has been
heading in. Unless one is trying to 'create' a right for black guys to
beat up white people or LBGT 'right' for a dude to pretend he's a girl
so's he/she/it can invade the ladies room.

Look. NOBODY should be getting beat up (or killed) because of the
color of their skin. And every little girl in America should
have the right not to have a pervert in the bathroom with them.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Beto O�Rourke has stunningly suggested that the United States should ditch its own Constitution.
By: kathy_s16
in CONSTITUTION
Sat, 19 Jan 19 5:30 AM
Msg. 21912 of 21975

I DON'T KNOW, ZIMBLERZERO, MAYBE WE WOULD LEARN MORE FROM BETO GETTING HIS TEETH CLEANED?

JUST SOME FACTS GATHERED:

United States (U.S.) Founding Fathers

The U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

Many of the United States Founding Fathers were at the Constitutional Convention, where the Constitution was hammered out and ratified. George Washington, for example, presided over the Convention. James Madison, also present, wrote the document that formed the model for the Constitution.

Other U.S. Founding Fathers were not there, but made significant contributions in other ways. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia by carrying on correspondence with James Madison. John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote "Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America." Thomas Paine wrote the influential pamphlet "Common Sense," which immeasurably influenced the philosophy reflected in the Declaration of Independence. One of the U.S. Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, was initially opposed to the very idea of the Constitution! He wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. However, when an agreement was made to add a "bill of rights" to the Constitution, Henry fought hard for its ratification.

The term "framers" is sometimes used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution. "Founding Fathers" often refers to people who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However, the notion of a "framer" or a "Founding Father" is not easily defined. For purposes of this website, "Founding Fathers" are individuals who had a significant impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly. The following list is by no means complete, but it does identify people who played a large role in the development of the Constitution at this crucial time in American history.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-founding-fathers/
============

SNIPPET:

Professor Klarman made four main points about what he calls “constitutional idolatry”. They are (1) that the framers’ constitution represented values that Americans should abhor or at least reject today; (2) that there are parts of the constitution America is stuck with but that are impossible to defend based on contemporary values; (3) that for the most part the Constitution is irrelevant to the current political design of the nation; and (4) that the rights that are protected today are mostly a result of the evolution of political attitudes, not of courts using the Constitution to uphold them.

=======

snippet:

.....regarding the values of the constitution. Do “the protection of slavery, the restriction of suffrage and so on” mean that “the framers’ constitution represented values that Americans should abhor or at least reject today”? I’m not so sure. It is certainly the case that many of the framers had values Americans today abhor and should and do reject. I tend to support those who argue, however, that most of those values were not, in fact, found in their Constitution (and are certainly not in ours, which contains the Civil War Amendments, among other improvements).

=========

snippet:

[Tea-partiers] say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

I think that’s somewhat, but not completely, true. Madison and Hamilton may have wanted to weaken the power of the states. What the Constitution actually does, however, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, isn’t to weaken anyone’s power: what it does is create power. That’s the secret of “separated institutions sharing powers,” and the secret of federalism; by creating many different institutions that matter and that can do things on their own (and/or with the cooperation of or in rivalry with other institutions), the system as a whole is far more energetic and dynamic than any one hierarchy could be. Not to be too sappy, but in this sense “Yes we can” is one of the most important values of the Constitution of the United States of America. We the people can do all these things (Establish justice! Promote the general welfare!), by creating a government that represents us and can do all these things.

http://newrepublic.com/article/77949/do-the-founding-fathers-views-still-matter
http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-founding-fathers/


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next