# Founding Fathers influencing today's politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2019, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345 "2019-08-28T06:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/21 "2019-08-29T13:33:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If people have some natural right to own firearms, . . . The undeniable “natural right” is the right of self defense. I recognize that some governments assume they possess a power to dictate to people what tools they can use to defend their life. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > why don’t people in other countries have this right? > > You have the right to own a firearm for one reason only - you live in a country where the government gives you that right. I will reply assuming you are actually interested in “why” and that you haven’t been instructed in “why”. Short answer, (which you have already been given), US citizens posses the right to arms because “We the People”, when establishing the Constitution (a compact which empowers and establishes government and delegates specific duties for it to perform on our behalf) did not grant the government any power to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. Long answer: US citizens possess the right to arms because the United States is the only nation founded on the principle of **unalienable rights**. So while . . . [INDENT]“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”[/INDENT] … . the reality is, not everyone in the world is able to claim the full complement of rights _under the governments they subject themselves to, or allow themselves to be subjected under._ As stated, a vital part of claiming unalienable rights is society establishing a government of their choosing, an exercise in free will. So, _actionable_ unalienable rights are not universal. They do not exist for everyone, everywhere under all forms of government. The concept of unalienable rights has a very limited and specific application . . . The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. The people empower government by surrendering specific powers in a limited, delegated fashion. This established the principle that government cannot legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government’s power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly. The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life, liberty or property of another person. Here is the vital point; under these principles, government only keeps that power with the **consent of the governed** and the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be **inherent** and among those inherent rights a subset, called unalienable rights (sometimes inalienable), were considered of such intrinsic value to being human that a person, even willingly, cannot confer or surrender them to another person. Unalienable rights is a concept focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care or defense of his life, liberty or property. Unalienable also denotes legitimacy of action for government because no legitimate government would ever accept such a surrender by a citizen if offered. Unalienable really has nothing to do with whether a particular right _ **can** _ be violated by government . . . Of course it can, that’s a given. The term again is centered on legitimacy; when an unalienable right is violated, that government _is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment_, thus it has lost its legitimacy to govern. It is then subject to the people’s original “natural”, never surrendered right of self dense, to rescind their consent to be governed and retake the powers originally conferred. Important to your question, this is the principle of the 2nd Amendment; if this rescinding of their consent to be governed can not be done peacefully, then the people retain the right _ **and the means** _, to bear arms and use force to oust the usurpers. Unalienable rights is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Once the government’s powers have been established, (by a ratified\* by the people\* constitution, _consenting to be governed_), unalienable rights become relatively moot because their status has _ **unalterably** _ been codified. The only concern is whether they are being violated and the only enforcers of violations are the people (again, because the care of these rights can not be surrendered or transferred) . . . In the final analysis, one must understand that “unalienable rights” is a meaningless concept if there isn’t a government being established to _ **NOT** _ surrender rights to. It makes no sense to apply the term or use it in the context of people living under say, a monarchy or a dictatorship or even a parliamentary scheme . . . It is at its core a refutation of a monarchy and any authoritarian rule that is not subject to the citizen’s determination and ultimately, their right to rescind their consent to be governed. Even more nonsensical is a modern enlightened socialist/communist/anarchist discussing the term only to deny the existence of unalienable rights. . ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/22 "2019-08-29T16:32:30Z")
My point is that it’s obviously wrong to speak of unalienable rights while observing these rights don’t exist in other countries. That’s proof that these rights are, in fact, quite alienable. And that’s evidence of the bigger point. People don’t have rights despite the government. We have rights because of our government. Government is the tool we collectively use to establish and protect our rights. Without government, we’re just a mob of individuals who have no rights. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/23 "2019-08-29T16:48:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And that’s evidence of the bigger point. People don’t have rights despite the government. We have rights because of our government. Government is the tool we collectively use to establish and protect our rights. Without government, we’re just a mob of individuals who have no rights. That’s the opposite of what the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment say. Maybe the Founding Fathers will rise from the dead tomorrow and say “jk lol” but I doubt it. > [@Aspidistra](#): > > The two sides are too well entrenched now to have their opinions changed by any particular bunch of people. Bingo. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/24 "2019-08-29T17:37:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Scalia is often lumped with originalists, but I am pretty sure that he was a textualist. From that perspective, it does not matter what the author desired, it is a matter of what he actually said. Bringing in all the Founding Fathers to re-convene the Constitutional convention would have no bearing on current interpretation because if the authors goofed and said the wrong thing, that is how the law should be decided. > > Of course, we still get no satisfaction in appealing to texts, as the recent decision demonstrates with Scalia and company’s decision to simply ignore (or handwave away), the opening clause of the 2d Amendment. The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not ignored. Well regulated at the time meant something like “in good working order” and a militia was all of the adult males of a territory that could be called on to serve in times of war. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or being tendentious. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/25 "2019-08-29T17:53:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If the founding fathers had any special genius, it was the awareness that they were men of their time. They realized that the country would change and that the laws they were writing in 1789 might not be the right laws in 1889 or 1989 or 2089. They recognized that changes would be needed and they made sure to make it possible for people in their future to change the laws as needed. They also made sure to make it possible for people in their future to change the Constitution as needed. Not just hand-wave it away. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/26 "2019-08-29T17:54:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s the opposite of what the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment say. > > Maybe the Founding Fathers will rise from the dead tomorrow and say “jk lol” but I doubt it. I disagree. Both documents are about the role of the government. The Declaration of Independence outlines what’s wrong with what was then the current government and the Constitution, including the Ninth Amendment, is about setting up a new government. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/27 "2019-08-29T17:57:04Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not ignored. Well regulated at the time meant something like “in good working order” and a militia was all of the adult males of a territory that could be called on to serve in times of war. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or being tendentious. I can’t seem to recall any time in U.S. history where a civilian was brought up on charges for not keeping firearms “in good working order”. Seems like a strange thing to stick in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Wolf333](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf333/32/3460_2.png) [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/28 "2019-08-29T18:45:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s the opposite of what the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment say. > > Maybe the Founding Fathers will rise from the dead tomorrow and say “jk lol” but I doubt it. > > Bingo. > > Regards, > > Shodan The people who wrote those were also cool with slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/29 "2019-08-29T18:58:22Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not ignored. Well regulated at the time meant something like “in good working order” and a militia was all of the adult males of a territory that could be called on to serve in times of war. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or being tendentious. Not sure where you’re going with this. Are you saying our current laws on gun ownership are based on membership in a militia? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/30 "2019-08-29T19:01:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that it’s obviously wrong to speak of unalienable rights while observing these rights don’t exist in other countries. That’s proof that these rights are, in fact, quite alienable. > > And that’s evidence of the bigger point. People don’t have rights despite the government. We have rights because of our government. Government is the tool we collectively use to establish and protect our rights. Without government, we’re just a mob of individuals who have no rights. Do you think there is such a thing as “human rights”? Something such that a country like, North Korea, could violate? Everyone starts with certain unalienable rights. The right to not be killed for example. Just because someone kills another person, doesn’t mean they didn’t possess that right, it means that someone violated their rights. That a right is violated does not mean that it never existed, though depending on circumstances one may not have the ability to enforce those rights. In your view, people are subjects of the government. In the context of the US, the government is subject to the people. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/31 "2019-08-29T19:02:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Not sure where you’re going with this. Are you saying our current laws on gun ownership are based on membership in a militia? Only people that can be called on in time of war can own guns, and the guns they own must be in good working order. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/32 "2019-08-29T19:32:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I can’t seem to recall any time in U.S. history where a civilian was brought up on charges for not keeping firearms “in good working order”. Seems like a strange thing to stick in the Constitution. The idea of charging a civilian with not keeping his firearms “well regulated” isn’t in the Constitution. “Arms” and “militia” are different words, referring to different things. Maybe the Founding Fathers could explain that clearly enough, but I doubt it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/33 "2019-08-29T19:36:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The idea of charging a civilian with not keeping his firearms “well regulated” isn’t in the Constitution. “Arms” and “militia” are different words, referring to different things. > > Maybe the Founding Fathers could explain that clearly enough, but I doubt it. > > Regards, > Shodan Take it up with **puddleglum** -he was the one interpreting it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/34 "2019-08-29T19:44:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you think there is such a thing as “human rights”? Something such that a country like, North Korea, could violate? Yes, I think there are human rights. But I don’t think they appear out of thin air. I think we choose to establish a right. And then we establish a government to make the right happen. I don’t see any point in having rights which only exist in a theoretical sense. It doesn’t matter if I have a right to free speech, for example, if I’m surrounded by people who will act against me if I say something they don’t like. Real rights only exist when people live in a society where they can practice those rights. And government is the means we use to do this. > [@Bone](#): > > In your view, people are subjects of the government. In the context of the US, the government is subject to the people. No, that’s the opposite of my view. As you note, the government is subject to the people in this country. I thought that was clear from me referring to the government as a tool used by the people. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/35 "2019-08-29T19:45:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Only people that can be called on in time of war can own guns, and the guns they own must be in good working order. I don’t think our current laws require this. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/36 "2019-08-29T19:54:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Take it up with **puddleglum** -he was the one interpreting it. No, actually he didn’t say anything like what you claimed. He apparently understands that the words “militia” and “arms” are different. It’s a problem with debates like this one. One side calls it “interpreting” - textualists call it “reading for comprehension”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/37 "2019-08-29T20:01:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, actually he didn’t say anything like what you claimed. He apparently understands that the words “militia” and “arms” are different. > > It’s a problem with debates like this one. One side calls it “interpreting” - textualists call it “reading for comprehension”. I think you are confusing “textualism” with “originalism”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/38 "2019-08-29T20:19:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think you are confusing “textualism” with “originalism”. “Originalism” is what **puddleglum** was doing when he explained what the words “well-regulated” meant. “Textualism” is what I was doing when I pointed out what **puddleglum** actually said. “Interpretation” is what you were doing, when you claimed the Constitution said something because you wanted it to be there. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/39 "2019-08-29T20:21:11Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not ignored. Well regulated at the time meant something like “in good working order” and a militia was all of the adult males of a territory that could be called on to serve in times of war. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or being tendentious. OK. Not ignored, just hand-waved away with odd interpretation of grammar. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2019, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/40 "2019-08-29T20:35:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that it’s obviously wrong to speak of unalienable rights while observing these rights don’t exist in other countries. That’s proof that these rights are, in fact, quite alienable. What definition of the word “alienable” are you using? Did the people in your “other countries” willingly surrender those rights to their rulers, or were those rights never recognized to exist in the people when the ruler took power? If the people are living under an authoritarian government of a conqueror or the vestiges of a monarch that doesn’t recognize rights, those rights can’t be said to have ever been _alienated by the people_ . . . perhaps stolen, or in the parlance of the framers, “usurped”, but definitely **NOT** alienated. When rights theory is being discussed, there is a particular lexicon with specific definitions that needs to be respected and adhered to. If you insist on using a bastardized or perverted meaning for these words, I’m afraid no reasoned discussion can be had. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And that’s evidence of the bigger point. People don’t have rights despite the government. We have rights because of our government. Well, that depends on what political philosophy you are operating under and what rights theory you embrace. In Lockean rights theory, humans originally had “natural rights” when one was living in the wild, unencumbered by any other person’s will. You were free to do anything, all rights are absolute, limited only by your physical abilities to take what you want or defend what you have. The risk was encountering a stronger person that wished to subjugate you or enslave you or even kill you and take what is yours. Humans, being “social” creatures, desire and choose to form “society”, to enjoy the mutual benefits of task sharing cooperation with others and to combine their power to defend against outside forces that would subjugate, enslave or kill them. The classic instructional philosophies of how humans form “society” is a long story (back to Plato and Aristotle) and quite well understood. The founders / framers of the USA’s governing system primarily had the absolutists Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer (with some Hobbes thrown in) vs. Locke and Sidney to choose from . . . They chose Locke and Sidney. Locke advocated a society (government) that is established from the free will of its members, who choose what limited powers the society (government) shall have – which also determines what rights the people shall enjoy – which is to say, what interests society (government) may not intrude upon. Under absolutists, you have the rights they decide you will have – generally limited to “rights” that do not threaten their power, so free speech, a free press, assembly and certainly the right to arms are NOT recognized to exist. OTOH, in a Constitutional Republic, the people grant government its powers and tell the government what it is allowed to do and tell that government it only keeps those powers for as long as we believe it is operating in our best interest. We can not be barred from speaking out against that government or writing in opposition to the government or assembling to protest the government or even, if we decide the government is violating the principles of its establishment, take up arms and _abolish_ that government. None of these rights are given, granted, created or established _ **by the government** _, such a concept is absurd; as is the belief these rights are granted by the compact by which the people grant government its powers. We possess those rights because we retained them, we never gave government any power to act against those interests. I’m sad to say you seem to have a particular affinity for the mindset of the absolutist or conqueror and a particular respect for his assumed power to pick and chose what rights people should have. . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=3)