Why do people deify of the 'Founding Fathers'?

[arcadian]

There is always talk, especially by politicians of "what the Founding Fathers intended". I mean if you really want to break it down, Jefferson envisioned a nation of gentleman farmers. That's not happening. Most of the 'Founding Fathers' went completely broke financing the American revolution, how many politicians today would be willing to make that same sacrifice to save this nation? Not many, I would imagine. I just think it's silly to try to live up to outdated ideals proposed by some aristocrats over 200 years ago.

[ProleNoMore]

1. Careful There - The Founding Founders Are Some Of the Last Hope Many Of Us Have

eom

[tekisui]

2. Hate to break it to you, they are all dead and will not save you.

[ProleNoMore]

7. No One Asked For Salvation, Just Inspiration And Wisdom

eom

[arcadian]

26. "No One Asked..."

To whom are you referring?

[ProleNoMore]

38. The One Would Be Me As Addressed By The Poster Responded To

eom

[Critters2]

62. From people who thought I shouldn't have the right to vote or own property?

Thanks, but I'll get my inspiration elsewhere.

[Xenotime]

98. Exactly. Their ideals are outdated and need to be reformed.

[TwilightGardener]

119. Which ideals need to be reformed?

[Romulox]

136. Proportional representation in the Senate would be a great start. nt

[TwilightGardener]

140. What would that achieve? Beyond preventing less-populated states

from sharing equal status. And is that really an "ideal"?

[Romulox]

166. It would achieve proportional representation in the Senate.

"Beyond preventing less-populated states from sharing equal status."

States should not share equal status, because they are demonstrably not equal. Moreover, the "federation of sovereign states" envisioned by the founders has not come to pass--it is a fiction that South Dakota is a) a sovereign state which b) "deserves" representation in the Senate that is equal to California's, e.g.

One person, one vote. Simple, fair, and democratic.

If you hadn't noticed, our country is held hostage to the whims of just 40 of those Senators, representing a tiny minority of Americans. The majority are effectively disenfranchized in favor of tiny minorities, almost all of whom represent small, rural, agrarian (which means they suck heartily at the gov't subsidy teat!) states.

Both the Senate hostage situation and the extortionary concessions won to win the favor of the Senators of these same small states seems to be a running theme in our nation's history, and another area in which our founder's vision was less than visionary.

[anonymous171]

143. How about just cutting their terms in half? nt

[Romulox]

167. Then a NEW guy from Iowa or South Dakota will hold us hostage.

One person, one vote. It's hard to argue against that.

[anonymous171]

169. Hold us hostage from what? A bill allowing the bigger states to shit all over smaller ones?

[Romulox]

180. Pork laden farm bills, for example.

Iowa, like most small states, gets more back from the Federal government than it contributes.

[arcadian]

9. Thank you.

[Romulox]

3. Our founders devised a hideously broken political system

based on, among other things, slavery and plutocracy. Not heroes to me.

[JVS]

6. They designed a political system that suits the interest of their class.

For them the big thing was legitimizing rule by people who were rich, but not of "noble" birth. That's what they did.

[tekisui]

10. And it has withstood the test of time.

Ruled by the elite for the elite---screw the rest.

[Romulox]

13. Very perceptive. Agree 100%. nt

[treestar]

92. Not true

Granted they had property qualifications. That was as they understood it at the time. But there is nothing in the Constitution itself that requires property, and we were able to change that when we had progressed to that point. In a stable way, without violence. The only thing that required violence was getting rid of slavery.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. The creation of this country as a constitutional republic was wholly an experiment.

Never had been done before, no trial and error. All guessing and estimation built on 18th Century European progressive philosophy such as Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes. All theory until the first Congress convened. That's why there are indefinites written into the Constitution so the future of this country could be decided as history evolved (or devolved).

[Romulox]

16. An experiment in *what* exactly? An experiment in plutocracy

instead of monarchy.

[no_hypocrisy]

21. An experiment in creating a country from a colony, a country with

divided Powers, a country with both federal and state powers. The fierce debates during the Constitutional Congress, the publication of the Federalist Papers demonstrate how many theories were considered.

[Romulox]

23. I'm pretty sure the US wasn't the first colony-turned-slaveholder's paradise...

"a country with both federal and state powers."

This is largely a myth. The Federal government is now pre-eminent in virtually all matters.

[arcadian]

22. That's funny, I thought they used the Greek and Roman model.

[AllentownJake]

28. More Roman than Greek

Our founding father's had a great admiration for the Roman Republic, and is why most of our public buildings have Roman facades.

[TwilightGardener]

67. So why do they call the architecture of the 1820's--1860's "Greek Revival"?

[AllentownJake]

68. The Romans stole from the Greeks

Just like we stole from the Brittish.

[TwilightGardener]

72. Sorry, I'm pretty sure the bulk of inspiration came from an admiration

of ancient Greece (however much the Romans might have borrowed)--right down to naming American cities after Greek cities during that time period.

[AllentownJake]

78. Our legal structure is more Roman than Greek

I lived in Old City, the old national banks were more Roman than Greek in design.

Our culture is more based on Roman Republic ideology than it has any resemblence to Athenian democracy.

[TwilightGardener]

82. But you're missing my point--the origin of Greek Revival architecture was

the admiration of ancient Greece, no matter how that got interpreted (or misinterpreted) in the classical orders used in architecture at the time. Which is why they didn't call it "Roman Revival".

[AllentownJake]

95. Greece is the foundation of all Western Culture

The Romans adopted the Greek Gods and Greek building style and incorporated greek philosphy into their own, the Jews incorporated hellenistic ideas into their own religion.

I agree with your statement

In terms of Government, Rome is the model and it was it's gift to the western world.

We have even adopted a Roman style with our conquests. We find friendly locals to prop up and run our client states. Our innovation is that instead of collecting taxes directly we have set up corporations who collect from the local population. Romans funded their empire through direct taxation, we fund ours through an indirect taxation.

[AllentownJake]

27. It was done before

Give you a hint SPQR.

[JVS]

104. It was done far more recently than that. Parliament had been around since 1707

[AllentownJake]

105. True our founders beef was more that they couldn't

play as equals with their elites across the pond than it had anything to do with the rabble.

[dhpgetsit]

18. They understood the injustice of aristocracy and plutocracy

They did a pretty good job of drafting a Constitution. We should appreciate thier work or go live in a country that has a better foundation than ours.

[Romulox]

33. Then why did they ensconce them into law? (Not to mention slavery).

PS: You can cram your "love it or leave it" crap with walnuts. Free Republic is thataway--------------->.

[cark]

Slavery

The constitution needed to be ratified by the states that would form the union and there would have been no United States without this concession. Sadly slavery was a part of the times. Everyone really should read 'The presumption of Liberty' it does a great job of explaining the legitimacy of the our constitution. The People that drafted this document were exceptionally insightful and forward thinking. Sadly our constitution has been neutered and left for dead.

[Romulox]

69. An absolute nonsense. The constitution did not "need" to be ratified to include slavery.

It may have been politically expedient to include slavery in order to secure ratification, but "need" is a weasel word.

"Sadly slavery was a part of the times."

And this whole argument tends to negate the idea that our Founders were men whose alleged "brilliance" superseded all of their contemporaries.

[cark]

101. If you knew anything about history

You obviously know little about the whole constitutional convention and deliberations. The many states would not have signed on to any constitution that did not protect their states interests in slavery and this states rights issue extends to other areas as well.

You also need to recognize that this was a union of independent states that didn't want to give up much autonomy or power to a central government. If you wanted a 'legitimate' constitution it need to be accepted by the people it governed.

What do you supposed they should have done? I don't see any workable alternatives.

If you study how and why the constitution was written the way it was, it is absolutely brilliant. These men signed there own death warrants when they signed the declaration of independence. Can you name me any politicians that have anything close to the same amount of self sacrifice serving today?

[Romulox]

116. On the contrary, I know there was a robust Abolitionist movement in the late 18th century

And that the immorality of slavery was well recognized in our founders' day. Again, argue that these men transcended the crassness of their times, or argue that they cannot be blamed for their actions because of same. Arguing both points simultaneously simply does not work.

"You also need to recognize that this was a union of independent states that didn't want to give up much autonomy or power to a central government."

And yet the Founders would not recognize the current balance between Federal government as the system laid out in their Constitution. Again, their alleged "brilliance" doesn't seem to be bolstered by this line of argument.

"What do you supposed they should have done?"

Not ratified a Constitution that codified the practice for counting slaves as less than human beings. Not formed a government that countenanced slavery.

"If you study how and why the constitution was written the way it was, it is absolutely brilliant."

Brilliant in the sense of "politically expedient" I might agree on. Brilliant in the sense that their wisdom transcended their time? Not on the issue of slavery (amongst others.)

[cark]

127. You completely ignore reality

These men didn't live in your fantasy land, they had to deal with reality. Reality was that slavery existed and at the time they didn't have the power to do anything about it.

And yet the Founders would not recognize the current balance between Federal government as the system laid out in their Constitution. Again, their alleged "brilliance" doesn't seem to be bolstered by this line of argument

I agree that the founders wouldn't recognize our current federal government. Nobody can argue that our constitution has been faithfully followed/interpreted by the modern courts, thats our fault not theirs.

If you study the the reasoning behind what they did, which you obviously haven't, it was transcendently brilliant.

[spoony]

131. Well they could've chosen not to...own...slaves. No?

Or were they maligned victims in that respect also? Did they try to not own slaves and slaves kept insisting they be owned by them?

[cark]

138. Reality Check - Fantasy Land doesn't exist

Sadly slavery was part of the culture, that was able to be overcome by our great nation. You guys pretend that slavery wasn't practiced world wide, including the places where most of the slaves came from. Things change, people progress and attitudes change.

I still don't know what you would have had them do, there would have been slavery no matter what, but without the other states there most likely wouldn't have been a United States as we know it.

Actually you could rightfully argue that by including/allowing slave states it probably ended slavery sooner through pressure from the northern states and eventually civil war.

[spoony]

141. Lol, wow

That's some powerful rationalising. Powerful. And if Fantasy Land doesn't exist, where the hell did you go to school to learn ethics and history?

[dhpgetsit]

151. Ease up, pal!

Read a little of Jefferson's writings and think about it.
Maybe you will come to a better understanding. Yes he owned slaves. But I'll bet he hat 10 times your intellect.

[spoony]

156. What is intellect without integrity?

And, nicely placed misspelling in the middle of your attack on someone's intelligence.

[dhpgetsit]

152. Jefferson and others believed slavery would be abandoned before long.

They did not ban it in the original Constitutional Convention in order to get the Constitution ratified.

You may find this enlightening: Notes on Virginis by Thomas Jefferson

http://books.google.com/books?id=DTWttRSMtbYC&dq=notes+...

[marmar]

36. Yeah....that foundation was the backs of slaves.

nt

[cliffordu]

49. Then why the fuck are you here?

I've never said 'Love it or Leave it...' before......

In your case I'll make an exception.

[Romulox]

53. "Love it or leave it" is an idiotic sentiment. nt

[cliffordu]

56. So is haunting a board that is ostensibly for people who

believe in the system they are talking about. If you don't believe in what we're doing, we can get along without you.

Ya got no purpose. No value.

Anyone can hate. Teabaggers prove that every time they open their mouths.

What do you believe in??

What form of government do you espouse? I mean except the one where Romulax is brilliant and everyone else is stupid?

[Romulox]

58. I didn't think it was possible, but this post is stupider than the last.

[cliffordu]

60. Well, there ya go then.

Don't answer the question, whatever you do.

[Romulox]

61. You don't *realy* believe that "love it or leave it...ya got no purpose" is a conversation starter

You're just trolling...

[cliffordu]

63. After you shared your little beliefs about the founders and what they created, I just had to ask.

[Romulox]

66. Your argument would make a Freeper blush. It's pathetic. nt

[cliffordu]

70. I think pathetic is a nice word and coming from you I think I'll wear it

with pride.

"I'm pathetic in Romulax's eyes" has a nice ring to it.

[Romulox]

71. Just retreat to General Discussion: Status Quo. You paens to blind patriotism will play well there

[cliffordu]

73. WELL.......

What have you changed lately, tough guy?

[Romulox]

76. Syntax? Grammar? Logic? ABORT! ABORT! nt

[treestar]

88. You didn't answer the question

You just attacked the poster who asked it.

WHat would have been better, and why would any founders who wanted this system of yours be able to pull it off at that time?

[Romulox]

113. I'm not engaging in any "dialogue" that begins with the proposition "love it or leave it"

What a surprise to see that you defend those statements.

[treestar]

174. The dialogue here began with "this post is stupider than the last."

Nice attempt at a dodge, but anyone can see the thread levels.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. No More Idiotic Than Your Own.

[Romulox]

84. Ut oh. This thread is about to get all Intellecshual up in here!

OMC is here to type everything in title form and to spew insults. The thread is saved!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. Nope. Nothing Could Save This Thread.

It was dead from the start.

[cliffordu]

90. Yep. DOA.

[jonnyblitz]

64. wow, it's truly bizarre you get this angry. I thought this was

common knowledge that you are going into meltdown over. Make sure you don't read anything by Howard Zinn or you might have a heart attack.

[ZombieHorde]

89. "Love it or leave it" is a logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

Your mistake is exaggerated by the fact the founding fathers neither loved nor left the colonies they lived in. They changed the colonies to their will.

[cliffordu]

99. And yet the walking stupor I responded to has regaled us with no such plans

or ideas about changing anything.......

I thought it might be nice to meet and respond to him in the space where he is most comfortable, that fair part of our town populated by inflammatory cliche and faux hard guy stances.

Some folks don't want a real conversation, they just want to pee on the furniture.

[Romulox]

114. Says the fellow who began the exchange with "love or leave it,"...and MEANT it!

"that fair part of our town populated by inflammatory cliche and faux hard guy stances."

[cliffordu]

134. And what did you begin your droolfest with??

The founders risked everything they owned to at least try to form a government that might work without the oppression of religion or the crown......

Not as perfect as you , as we all understand.

Still, a nagging question:

What have you done lately to correct the course of this country, you know, the one based on slavery and plutocracy?

While I'm at it, what have you EVER done to serve this country?

[spoony]

96. Grow up.

Use your big boy communication skills instead of this pre-packaged, RW-originated bullshit.

[cliffordu]

100. Well.......

[treestar]

85. The slavery was already there

Jefferson, Franklin and Adams wanted it out but it was politically impossible at that time. They needed the southern states in for the union to work.

Those southerners were like today's right wingers, and far more powerful, since the colonies were not unified and each one had to be convinced to stay in.

[cliffordu]

86. Please don't bring actual historical fact into this, please. The haters will just

call names and change the subject.

[Romulox]

115. Fair point, but absolutely NO EXCUSE for enshrining in our Constitution.

It's disgusting. It can't be forgiven.

People knew FULL WELL that slavery was evil, immoral, and that their little "deal" made hypocrites of them all in 1787 this isn't a modern revelation. These "but it was the times!" excuses have been stretched further than they will go.

[TwilightGardener]

117. So...our system of government and our Constitution are forever

"broken" by a practice that was controversial from the git-go and abolished over 140 years ago? What do we do now--wallow in self-loathing and tear up the Constitution (the same one that prohibits slavery by amendment) and beg England to take us back into the Commonwealth? Can I order my hairshirt online? Jesus, the stupid, it burns.

[Romulox]

120. Our nation is forever stained by slavery. Does anyone argue otherwise?

Our government isn't particularly democratic and is subject to a two-party hostage situation. So it's got problems beyond its shameful past. But this thread isn't about that; it's about the alleged "brilliance" of the Founders.

As for the rest of the strawman stuff, it's just not worth responding to.

[TwilightGardener]

125. What does the stain of a practice that was abolished

through both law and bloodshed many generations ago have to do with the function and worthiness of our government system and Constitution now--the same basic system our Founders devised? And what are you proposing we do about this "broken" form of government--or is it forever rendered dysfunctional or illegitimate no matter what we've changed about it, or will change? Should we declare our experiment failed? Should we abolish or radically change some feature of our government? Should we overthrow our government and start a new one and that will erase our historic human failings and sins? What new model should we build, and how will that fix our "stain"? That's the "strawman" stuff you refer to--you can't respond to it because you're all about spouting uselessly from your blowhole about ONE aspect of our history.

[Romulox]

128. It reflects upon the authors of that wretched "compromise" and their alleged "brilliance".

That's what this thread is about. Not "the function and worthiness of our government system and Constitution now."

"That's the "strawman" stuff you refer to..."

Right. The "strawmen" are arguments that originate with you that you want me to defend (and on a thread in which such a discussion would be off-topic, no less!) I'm not interested in that.

[TwilightGardener]

132. You said our system of government was "hideously broken". When asked why, you point

to slavery. When asked what you think can be done to correct it, beyond abolishing slavery (you can check that one off), you call it "strawman arguments". I'm not arguing over the "brilliance", or lack thereof, of the Founders. My own view is that they were pretty visionary and forward-thinking and had some great ideas, but also imperfect and still mired in the cultural views and economic practices of their time. They are to be admired even though there were flaws in what they set forth. But their system is our system, with a few fixes along the way. What's wrong with it?

[Romulox]

135. You're conflating two distinct arguments

I did indeed say that our system of government is "hideously broken" as a strike against the Founder's alleged "brilliance". I also said their countenancing slavery was another mark against. Those are two distinct (albeit related) arguments.

Again, it becomes a "strawman" when you post several propositions that originate with you and you alone, and demand another person defend these arguments. I am simply not going to engage in such a discussion at this time.

"I'm not arguing over the "brilliance", or lack thereof, of the Founders."

Again, the "'brilliance', or lack thereof, of the Founders." is the topic set out for this thread. I'm not sure why this fact eludes you...

[TwilightGardener]

139. I'm not conflating anything. I'm quoting you. You said our system

was broken because it was BASED ON (note, not "countenanced", BASED on) slavery and plutocracy. So, since slavery was abolished and even poor and non-land-owning people can vote and have representation in government, why is our system forevermore to be considered broken and evidence of the Founders' failure? I addressed you, and your post--I didn't address the OP. I have the ability to limit my focus to one aspect of a thread. You're all over the place.

[anonymous171]

144. Humanity is stained by slavery. nt

[treestar]

175. Well, you weren't there

To save them from failure to produce 1865 in 1787.

[hughee99]

145. They didn't even put universal health care in the constitution...

Thanks for nothin', "Founding Fathers".

[cark]

171. Our Founders Devised A Great System

We just chose not to follow it. Politicians and justices opted to circumvent the constitution to achieve temporarily politically expedient outcomes. You can blame them for us not following the plan.

[JVS]

4. Because they are dumb fucks.

[TexasObserver]

5. They usually do it because they're demagoguing some point.

And they're usually wrong about the point they think they're making.

The founding fathers did create a government that has endured, and that has some key ideas about power sharing and individual rights. They were far, far more educated and reasonable than the congress we have in the modern era, who look like a bunch of buffoons by comparison. However, they were men of wealth, power and inherent bigotry. They owned slaves. They treated them as property. They allowed only white men of property to vote. They were the PIGS from Animal Farm - the ones who really, really made out from the revolution.

The founding fathers voted their economic interests when they created the constitution.

[Nye Bevan]

8. The Founding Fathers were geniuses

To come up with a constitution and system of Government that has stood the test of time for well over 200 years, and has survived into a world that would have been in many ways unimaginable to them at the time, is an incredible achievement. Bear in mind that back then many people believed that this little experiment would fail quickly and the US would shamefacedly return to English rule. Moreover, I firmly believe that the US political system (while not perfect) is the best in the world. The separation of powers has been especially effective, especially compared to countries like the UK where this concept basically does not exist.

[joeybee12]

12. +infinity

Some of the twits posting here need a history lesson.

[arcadian]

19. "+infinity"? Really?

Not to put you down or anything but I think the last time I recall using that phrase was in the 3rd grade.

[joeybee12]

31. Yeah, but that was only about 4 months ago, wasn't it?

Not to put you down, of course.

[arcadian]

46. Is this guy for real?

[spoony]

97. Careful, you're about to get hit with

the old "I'm rubber you're glue"!

[Romulox]

15. Are you familiar with the 30 odd ammendments to their "brilliant" document,

Not to mention the inummerable common law/case law modifications of same? For example, the Constitution provides for no Federal "police power"; all of the Federal government's pseudo-police powers are premised on a tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the founders assuredly did not intend.

It's like decorating a new home with wood from an old barn--there's some decent planing there, but it has little to do with the current foundation of the structure. The founders wouldn't recognize the present US government as their creation.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Part of the brilliance of their achievement

is that they built flexibility into the constitution by allowing for the possibility of amendments. And a key feature is that they did not make it too easy to amend the constitution. Compare this with the mockery of the California State Constitution which can be amended at will by a simple majority in a referendum. I don't know who wrote this one but they were no Jefferson or Adams.

[Romulox]

25. Isn't that a neat bit of circular logic!

The document was brilliant because, even though it wasn't really brilliant, it was made better by other people later?

What, pray tell, is the Constitutional provision for another Constitutional Convention, btw? You know, just in case any present day people are also "brilliant" enough to write a document that calls a human being 3/5 of a person ( )

[Nye Bevan]

34. I never said it wasn't brilliant

It is. The amendment process is just one of its many good features. And the 3/5 of a person was an ingenious compromise to get to an agreement between the Southern slave states and the Northern states.

[Romulox]

35. Any document that enshrines slavery and rule by landed gentry is not "brilliant"

"And the 3/5 of a person was an ingenious compromise to get to an agreement between the Southern slave states and the Northern states."


You defend the indefensible.

[Uncle Joe]

123. That was the Dred Scott Decision by the Taney Supreme Court which occurred in 1857,

approximately 70 years after the Constitution was ratified and the Founders were long dead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The 13 colonies of the late 18th century were, sparsely populated, mostly agrarian societies and fragile entities surviving in what they perceived as a hostile world threatened either by the empires of the day, North American Indians and disputes among them selves.

The early flag of a cut up snake symbolized their thoughts on the importance of unity to survival. Compromises were made as in allowing slavery to exist and equal representation of small states in the Senate in order to get all the colonies on board for ratification of the Constitution.

No document or contract could be drawn up in their day; as no document could be drawn up today that would not become functionally obsolete; given enough time, cultural evolution and enlightenment, without the ability for alteration or amendment.

I believe the Founders had great vision by incorporating an amendment process in to the Constitution without making it too easy to change. The Founders were a product of their time and while they certainly weren't perfect; no one is.

[treestar]

81. It built the amendment system in

It wasn't expected to stay the same.

It was made better by other people later based on its own terms.

Geez, what system would you prefer?

[Romulox]

118. You can't be arguing that there is any process under the US Constitution

to suspend the Constitution itself, then replace it with another, as in the original Constitutional Convention (because there's not.)

The Founders were not "brilliant" enough to provide for the right for present day persons to engage in self-governance to the degree that they themselves did. Despite the demonstrable injustice, inefficiency, and plain incompetence of our present form of government, and no matter how "brilliant" the current generations, the only way to start anew is war.

Which is, ironically enough, the situation the colonists found themselves in...

"Geez, what system would you prefer?"

Any of the parliamentary systems of Western Europe (save perhaps Britain's) would be a vast improvement. Is your imagination so limited?

[treestar]

177. Yes there is

Read it, it can be changed.

[spoony]

121. You've accidentally stumbled upon a truth

The Constitution is only worth anything because it has since been changed by men and women BETTER than the "founding fathers" were. THEIR ideas, THEIR compassion, THEIR views have moved us away from the original ERRORS.

[zipplewrath]

41. A little creative counting

Before we all drink too deeply of Zinn's take on American history, of those 30 amendments (27 actually unless I've missed some recently) 11 (1-10 and 27) were proposed by the very same set of folks that wrote the constitution. So now we're down to 16. Of those 11 are focused on the vague topic of representation and suffrage(12,14,15,17,19,20,22-26). So you've basically got 5 amendments that address basic structural aspects of powers of government. Amongst those are the 13th, which was argued at the time of the constitution, so the issue was well understood by them. They just didn't feel capable of addressing it at the time, and for reasons which became evident. You've got two which are effectively the opposite, the 18th and th 21st were twin amendments attempting to "improve it" and then undoing that improvement. So at that point the only 2 which weren't really considered or provided for in the original were income tax (16th) and state immunity (11th). Not bad for 200+ years.

The representation ones are evidence of how we have grown since that founding and directly address Zinn's and others here complaints of how the original system was designed basically around white male land owners. We have expanded the voting rights extensively. And that is only 3 of those amendments. Many of the rest involve presidential succession and election (5 of them).

But the original question is valid. There is a problem with "deification" of them. They didn't agree much. It was a compromise document. And really, much of what we think of our constitution was established well after it was written. The power of the federal judiciary, the commerce clause, the standing military, and the enforcement of civil rights all severely post dates the creation. If anything its real strength probably comes from the fact that it relies upon each generation to interpret it anew and apply it to their standards, which means it continuously generates support.

[Romulox]

43. That's more than a "little" creative accounting you've done there!

LOL at dismissing broad swaths of our most cherished protections as being on the "vague topic of representation and suffrage"(!), but your characterizations aren't terribly compelling.

[zipplewrath]

147. well, it is to serve the point

Cherished or not, if one is considering the quality of the job done by the originators, their work has held up quite well. The amendments do not particularly change the structure or power balance of the government. And many are merely about presidential succession and election. There is the expansion of suffrage which is addressed with roughly 3 of them. But again, as important as those were, they don't really change the fundamental structure or power of government. The obviously change the power and structure of society however. I think there was a hole or two in their work, some of which continues to this day, and I agree that there is a mistake to be made in holding them up as some sort of deity. But over all, considering their lack of any particularly good model from which to work, they did a good job.

[XemaSab]

160. At the time of the original Star Trek, the Klingons were the enemy

but 100 years later the Federation had made peace with the Klingons and there were Klingon officers on board Starfleet ships.

Does this say that the Federation was tainted from the outset because they did not recognize the Klingons as a potential ally, or was the Federation later able to rectify an old mistake by making peace with the Klingons?

[abq e streeter]

17. wish I could rec a reply (yours) instead of an OP

no unrec for the OP; just because I disagree , I have no interest in making it harder for others to see and make up their own mind.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. They were both brilliant and brave

and put their lives and their wealth at risk if they lost their gamble for freedom. I think it's too bad that people see pictures of them in those stiff formal poses in funny satin clothes and white wigs and just fall over in a swoon of boredom without realizing WHAT THEY DID!

The poor guys just couldn't imagine a world where corporate interests would dominate and corrupt their beautiful structure. If they did, they would have addressed campaign finance specifically in the the Consitution.

[Critters2]

65. Thanks, but I'd like universal health care and effective gun control.

People use the founding fathers to prop up their arguments against both of these. Other nations have these. I'd like them.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. People use the Bible to prevent my family from having

basic human rights, today, right now. And yet you are a 'minister' preaching that Bible. The one that orders slaves to obey their masters, and women to be silent in the gatherings. It says all of that, and is a tool of oppression in the now, and yet you preach it. If you were consistent, you would either put the Bible down, or use the same perspective for our founding documents. What you call 'the Word' says I should be executed. It says that.
Do you not see the huge hypocrisy in your two outlooks? I sure do.

[spoony]

122. You have no idea what you're talking about.

If you think Critters preaches any of that, you're a fool. And since the Bible is not a governing document, what are you waxing here besides the chip on your shoulder? We have a right to expect certain things of our government, and no Christian who posts here wants that government to be based in the Old Testament. I doubt anyone here would like the standards of Leviticus applied to the US. Your false cries of hypocrisy are off-base, irrelevant to this discussion, and theologically unsound to boot.

[Critters2]

150. I do not preach your oppression. I celebrate your family,

officiate at weddings for couples like yours. Thanks for the broadbrush. But you don't know me.

You're letting your hate blind you. I've never preached any of the things you're accusing me of. I'm a Girardian Christian. Please look into what that means.

[anonymous171]

146. Healthcare would be nice. Gun control would be stupid. nt

[TexasObserver]

158. Then these "genuises" constructed a constitution with no mention of individual rights.

That's why the DUers version of the Colonists raised holy hell after seeing the proposed Constitution, and said essentially "you're out of God damn mind if you think we're approving a new constitution without protections for us from an oppressive central government, so either add this nifty thing called the Bill or Rights, or stick it where the don't shine."

[JonQ]

11. They were a remarkably brilliant

and, for politicians, far-sighted and selfless people. You'd be hard pressed to assemble a similiar group at any other point in history.

[AllentownJake]

24. Why did Rome deify Caesar? Why did Egypt deify the Pharoh?

It served the interest of the state

[Gman2]

29. They are our Remus and Romulus. The necessary myth, for national pride.

It is our founding myth. Our founding fathers were nothing if not students of history. They likely envisioned our enshrining Washington. The man. It is the bludgeon, that the right uses against anyone finding other than the status quo. I wrote a piece here, taht was assualted terribly. My title was screw the founding fathers. It dealt with our breking away from strict interpretation. I praised the Hippy era findings on happiness and community. And how we as CSNY said, we got to get back to the garden. Urban garden that is. I still bear the scortch marks from that. People, from either side of the isle, react violently, to any screwing with the status quo. I claimed that our right path, was assassinated at Kent State.

[Nye Bevan]

39. It sounds like your paper was a masterpiece.

"Screw the Founding Fathers"- *very* clever title. I am very sorry taht it was assualted. I can't imagine why.

[Gman2]

52. The first line was, Well not really but!

[Greyhound]

110. They even created our own Goddess, Columbia (Liberty).

The original concept was a nation dedicated to the basic ideal of individual supremacy.

For a prototype, the government they created was revolutionary in every aspect.

[Warpy]

30. I had one wise history teacher through all of public school

and, although she was a fundy Baptist and had her own skewed view, she once told us that the founding fathers were not the people portrayed in the history books as demigods who never went to the toilet and that if we ever decided to read any real history, we'd discover fascinating men with plenty of interesting flaws who gave us a much better form of government than we probably deserved.

A few of us took her up on that and started to read their biographies.

She was right on all counts.

[dysfunctional press]

47. "...who gave us a much better form of government than we probably deserved."

and what did she mean by that, exactly...?