# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/61 "2019-08-30T14:28:53Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Do you think that constitutes a refutation or even a rebuttal to what I said? > > It doesn’t, and in trying to be sarcastic you make my point about the degraded condition of liberty, that citizens would allow someone with gold fringe to dictate to them as to their rights. Who awards the gold fringe in your world, that would allow them to speak on the subject of unalienable rights? > > That those rights are considered “unalienable” precludes such a condition doesn’t it? I’m trying to understand whether you believe that America is currently under admiralty law and that government only has the right to impose only those laws to which you have given direct consent. ---
**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 30, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/62 "2019-08-30T14:29:25Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Of course I did. > > I guess now we are in the paradoxical situation that a citizen claiming their rights and demanding government constrain itself to just the powers granted to it, can be condemned for hypocrisy, for assuming a power to define rights . . . > > Is that really where you are at? Where I am at is that I still don’t think you got the reference to “gold fringe”, despite your “Of course I did” toss-off. What is the significance of gold fringe when it comes to the law? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/63 "2019-08-30T14:33:55Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Why does Madison get to be the deciding voice? It was actually Justice Stevens whose dissent placed emphasis on Madison’s rejected draft. Justice Scalia rejected Stevens’s interpretation of Madison’s opinion. If Madison were to tell Scalia that Stevens was right, that removes one point from Scalia’s opinion. Nevertheless you’re right. However many people does it take to satisfy an originalist? Who knows, possibly a majority, possibly an influential minority. About half of Justice Scalia’s opinion in _Hellen_ is spent supporting his interpretation with contemporary sources. If _most_ of the people behind those sources, or possibly the influential people behind those sources, were to rise from the grave and tell Scalia that he got them all wrong, _then_ he might have ruled differently in that case. There’s a lot of speculation built into this post, but there’s a lot of speculation built into the original question. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/64 "2019-08-30T14:40:42Z")
[QUOTE=Max S.;21833444 Nevertheless you’re right. However many people does it take to satisfy an originalist? Who knows, possibly a majority, possibly an influential minority. About half of Justice Scalia’s opinion in _Hellen_ is spent supporting his interpretation with contemporary sources. If _most_ of the people behind those sources, or possibly the influential people behind those sources, were to rise from the grave and tell Scalia that he got them all wrong, _then_ he might have ruled differently in that case. ~Max[/QUOTE] If the FFs rose from the grave to express disagreement with this, _Citizens United_ or other recent right-leaning decisions, Fox News would label them socialists and Trump would tweet insults about their height. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/65 "2019-08-30T14:49:14Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m trying to understand whether you believe that America is currently under admiralty law and that government only has the right to impose only those laws to which you have given direct consent. I’m not talking about “direct consent”, I’m talking about the federal government restraining its operations (or being restrained) to just the specific powers granted to it by the Constitution. If one considers the 10th Amendment a part of the Constitution and a guide for the application of constitutional powers, what’s the dispute? Do you really consider it a contested premise that what isn’t conferred to the feds by the Constitution is retained by the people or the states? I admit, the principle seems dead and buried as far as the people’s rights go, in the minds of government agents and the citizens, (given your comments here), hence my comment about the degraded sense of liberty today. That the principle is being ignored for rights doesn’t mean I’m wrong in principle, or wrong to argue for the principle . . . I find it interesting that it remains a principle applied to benefit the states, as seem in the enforcement of the anti-commandeering doctrine, in a case so recent it hasn’t been assigned a page number yet: [INDENT]“The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States … Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.” _Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association_, 584 U.S. \_\_\_ (2018)[/INDENT] Also conspicuously absent is any power granted to define unalienable rights. ---
**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 30, 2019, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/66 "2019-08-30T14:53:06Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > I’m not talking about “direct consent”, I’m talking about the federal government restraining its operations (or being restrained) to just the specific powers granted to it by the Constitution. If one considers the 10th Amendment a part of the Constitution and a guide for the application of constitutional powers, what’s the dispute? > > Do you really consider it a contested premise that what isn’t conferred to the feds by the Constitution is retained by the people or the states? I admit, the principle seems dead and buried as far as the people’s rights go, in the minds of government agents and the citizens, (given your comments here), hence my comment about the degraded sense of liberty today. That the principle is being ignored for rights doesn’t mean I’m wrong in principle, or wrong to argue for the principle . . . > > I find it interesting that it remains a principle applied to benefit the states, as seem in the enforcement of the anti-commandeering doctrine, in a case so recent it hasn’t been assigned a page number yet: > [INDENT]“The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States … Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.” > > _Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association_, 584 U.S. \_\_\_ (2018)[/INDENT] This is getting tiresome. Would you mind directly answering about whether you believe that America is currently under admiralty law, and how “gold fringe” ties into it? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/67 "2019-08-30T14:59:02Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > If the FFs rose from the grave to express disagreement with this, _Citizens United_ or other recent right-leaning decisions, Fox News would label them socialists and Trump would tweet insults about their height. Even if they did so, I doubt Mr. Trump could successfully appoint a justice that insults the founding fathers. Presumably the Supreme Court would reverse on the Second Amendment, and those forces who still want an individual right to keep and bear arms will attempt to expand the court or pass a new amendment. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/68 "2019-08-30T15:33:41Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m trying to understand whether you believe that America is currently under admiralty law and that government only has the right to impose only those laws to which you have given direct consent. I almost completely agree with **Abatis**. I don’t understand your reference to “gold fringes” or “admirality law”, but in my opinion and my interpretation of the Supreme Court and founding father’s opinions, the federal government only has the powers enumerated under the constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution have the power to grant rights. The Constitution is an instrument of the states (and the people by extension) that gives the federal government the power to restrict certain rights, and prevents the state governments from restricting certain rights. It’s a small but important distinction. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/69 "2019-08-30T15:48:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This is getting tiresome. Would you mind directly answering about whether you believe that America is currently under admiralty law, and how “gold fringe” ties into it? I’m not **Abatis** , but I can certainly answer directly. America is under the Constitution, and gold fringe doesn’t enter into it, and is irrelevant. You shouldn’t have brought it up. Glad to be of help. 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 30, 2019, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/70 "2019-08-30T15:53:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’m not **Abatis** No, you are not. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. ---
**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 30, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/71 "2019-08-30T16:02:09Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > And I suppose you have the gold fringe to prove it. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > This is getting tiresome. Would you mind directly answering about whether you believe that America is currently under admiralty law, and how “gold fringe” ties into it? Drop this tiresome trite hijack about gold fringes. [/moderating] ---
**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 30, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/72 "2019-08-30T16:28:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > OK. Not ignored, just hand-waved away with odd interpretation of grammar. It is not an odd interpretation of grammar. It was a relatively common way of expressing an idea when the constitution was written. For example: The Constitution of Massachusetts, written in 1784 “The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever” In the second amendment the first clause gives the reason and the second gives the rule. Well regulated obviously refers to the militia and not the weapons themselves. Today it would be written, Because a properly functioning militia is necessary for a free country, the right to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed. Who does it apply to? This was answered explicitly by George Mason: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” ---
**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 30, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/73 "2019-08-30T16:34:18Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Who does it apply to? This was answered explicitly by George Mason: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” But wouldn’t an originalist want the _original_ meaning of “miltia”, as it was understood at the time the term was written in the Consititution, to hold sway over Mason’s reinterpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/74 "2019-08-30T16:57:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This is getting tiresome. Sit down sweetpea, unless you have something on topic to say. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/75 "2019-08-30T17:12:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But wouldn’t an originalist want the _original_ meaning of “miltia”, as it was understood at the time the term was written in the Consititution, to hold sway over Mason’s reinterpretation? The Mason quote is from 1788. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. Do the math. 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 30, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/76 "2019-08-30T17:21:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The Mason quote is from 1788. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. Do the math. Sorry-I got it mixed up with a previous post from **puddleglum** in which he said: > [@puddleglum](#): > > 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.** (bolding mine) This seems to be a different definition of “militia” than “the whole people, except a few public officers”. I might go so far as to opine that “the whole people, except a few public officers” do not fall under _any_ definition of “well regulated militia” that I can think of. ---
**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 30, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/77 "2019-08-30T17:26:50Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Sit down sweetpea, unless you have something on topic to say. Do not junior mod. Please consider that not every post requires a response. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/78 "2019-08-30T17:31:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This seems to be a different definition of “militia” than “the whole people, except a few public officers”. I might go so far as to opine that “the whole people, except a few public officers” do not fall under _any_ definition of “well regulated militia” that I can think of. In the Militia act of 1792, elected officials, postmen, judges and many other public officers are all exempted from any militia obligation: [INDENT]“And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.”[/INDENT] ---
**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 30, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/79 "2019-08-30T17:34:07Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > In the Militia act of 1792, elected officials, postmen, judges and many other public officers are all exempted from any militia obligation: > > [INDENT]“And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.”[/INDENT] I don’t believe I mentioned having any problems with the exemptions that were listed under the Militia Act of 1792. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/80 "2019-08-30T19:01:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t believe I mentioned having any problems with the exemptions that were listed under the Militia Act of 1792. This is getting tiresome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=5)