Um, I would say that, at least for their time, the Founding Fathers were neither liberal nor conservative but radical. The idea of democracy and self-rule was pretty wild.
So, who makes the call, on who is a true conservative, and who’s just a poseur?
You, I guess.
Then conservative Christians aren’t conservatives, due to their continuing war on the Establishment Clause, despite the reality that most Americans calling themselves conservatives are evangelicals?
Since, IMHO at least, fundamentalist Christians don’t understand the Bible, regardless of how thoroughly they have read it, I guess there aren’t any fundamentalist Christians.
Please go read what these men said and thought. There are thousands of volumes, and I cant tell you everything they said. Anyways, you will want to read it for yourself in their own words.
The Bill of Rights was not exhaustive in any way, but were required or there would be no United States, since the states would not ratify the Constitution unless there was a Bill of Rights.
Yes, it was mentioned at the time, that by listing some unalienable rights endowed by our creator, there might be attempts made to make limitations on freedom, but in the end, since everyone agreed that the federal governemnt could NEVER ever do anything that it was not specifically authorized to do by the Constitution, they had to let it go and get started with the country.
Tom Jefferson had no problem with marijuanna, so why should I? In fact, the founding fathers never outlawed any substance. When the americans wanted to outlaw booze in the early 1900’s, they knew it would require a constitutional ammendment to outlaw any substance since the federal government had no authority under the constitution to outlaw substances.
Social security? Income tax? No!!! you are NOT a conservative, but you are probably “sometimes” a nice fellow, and you deserve to be listened to and argued with. (Those others who oppose the Constitution, we dont even need to listen to since we will never understand each other or agree on anything).
Because they wrote down exactly what they thougt, for us today to read and see for ourselves. There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, no doubt, no unknowns, nothing is unclear in what they wanted.
All their letters, diaries, journals, debates, papers, are all there for anyone today to find out exactly what they meant and thought. Go to a government deposit library, and ask to see the papers and writings of the founding fathers.
Ah, so then the conservatives who fight to keep marijuana illegal are freedom-haters? And the Hollywood liberals who want to legalize marijuana are conversely freedom-lovers?
Oh, I might have read a thing or two along the way.
But you still haven’t told me whether you think we have any right to privacy.
Or why you think the ACLU doesn’t understand the 9th Amendment.
And yet only the True Conservatives interpret the document in the correct way. Right. Too bad we can’t call up Jefferson & Friends and find out whose interpretations are right and whose are wrong.
For the love of the Holy Forefathers who gave their lives so that we might have everlasting SuperWalmarts and all-you-can-eat salad bars, this discussion sounds so much like a religious debate that it’s scary.
You seem to have skipped over my question, Susanann; let me ask it one more time:
Is the right to privacy one of those unenumerated rights mentioned by the Ninth Amendment? What are some other rights the Framers had in mind as retained by the people?
I don’t think the courts explicitly relied on the 9th Amendment in Roe v. Wade. I don’t know if they mentioned the 9th Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. Do you know?
They did, yeah. It was one of the guarantees creating a penumbral right of privacy:
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) (citation omitted)
Further, Justice Goldberg wrote a three-justice concurrence to “emphasize the relevance of [the Ninth Amendment] to the Court’s holding.” Id. at 487. Goldberg then went on to describe the history of the Ninth Amendment, saying in part that:
Id. at 490-492 (“Emphasis added” in original).
Finally from Goldberg:
Id. at 495-96.
Susanann, what’re your thoughts on this?
(And december, Roe does talk about the Ninth Amendment in the context of the Griswold holding and concurrence, even though Blackmun ultimately founded the right of privacy “in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973))
Have you read all of these books so that you have a full and complete understanding? Do you think that the written word has only one possible interpretation?
I must confess a basic ignorance about Jewish Fascism. I am willing to learn about it if you choose to start another thread.
—Because they wrote down exactly what they thougt, for us today to read and see for ourselves. There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, no doubt, no unknowns, nothing is unclear in what they wanted.—
True, but then, they didn’t live today, and its pretty hard to figure out how they would see any given controversy today.
They also didn’t all agree with each other.
It’s also hard to claim that there is no misrepresentation or misunderstanding when honest scholars today can and do debate the founders, and plenty of people misrepresent their views all the time, including many conservatives.
This is the most important point, I think. You wanna go by the intentions of the Framers? Which Framers, and when?
Hey Susanann–given your encyclopedic knowledge of the constitutional literature, I’m sure you’re familiar with Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution by Pulitzer Prize-winner Leonard Levy, right?
–Levy at xiv.
–Levy at 1.
Hmm. Interesting topic, and a hijack. Think I’ll start another thread.
