Founding fathers mysticism?

Great Debates
21

[**
[/QUOTE]

The British do seem to be fond of quoting some of their more influential PMs in this fashion - the ones that shaped the state. Disreali (who’s name I think I’m misspelling) comes to mind.**
[/QUOTE]

I’m not convinced they use his quotes as an argument

**
[/QUOTE]
Regarding the OP we need to know who they were and what they wrote outside of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If we don’t like it, we CAN amend the constitution…but first we have to know what it says. And changing it is a major pain in the butt. So, often, a founding fathers quote that proves a point will trump. **
[/QUOTE]

Actually I can understand that the intent of the writers is very important when it comes to interpret the constitution (for instance for a judge). On the other hand, one could think that the intents should be less important that the advantages and disadvantes of such or such article as related to a current issue. Picking a common argument, figuring out why was writen the 2nd amendment should be interesting but way less important than figuring out if it would be beneficial or detrimental to modify it in the curent situation

By the way, I believe that the reverence toward the constitution is also an american peculiarity. I guess you’ll have a hard time finding someone who has the slightest clue about their constitution in other countries. But this peculiarity is much easier to explain, IMO (Mainly because it’s the first and only constitution the US ever had, and because being very difficult to amend it has only be altered in exceptional circumstances…other countries had an history before their constitutions, and often after had several, if not dozens of them)

22

Yes, but this tactic can only works if the wide majority considers the founding fathers has having an unquestionnable authority in the first place. If it wasn’t the case, the other side would respond : “who cares what X wrote 200 years ago? Look at the constitution and at the current issues”. End of debate. It seems to me that the issue you’re adressing is a consequence, not a cause.

23

Thanks for this link. I’ve been striken by two comments :

“Most Americans regard the Constitution as an authority, as a success; so for them the debate is closed”.

Is it generally true?

And even more by :

“The consequence is not to humanize the Founders, for though they may not be demigods, they are far above us.”

I’m surprised that this author, who argue about the validity of the debate, defend such a position. Do you think that a majority of americans share this opinion? If it is the case, I would find it not only peculiar, as in my OP, but very disturbing, since IMO, considering the (human)source of an opinion as “far above us” and refusing to “humanize” him can be very dangerous…

24

Yes. I wrote in the second paragraph western countries, and forget to delete the first occurence of the same sentence without the word western. You’ll admit that it’s difficult to compare the US with dictatorships.

Indeed…

25

I didn’t know about the Kurds. But when you refered to them, another example similar to the US came to my mind : Turkey, and Mustapha Kemal (who incendentaly is also called “father of the turks”).

However, I would still maintain that this situation is very peculiar amongst the western democratic countries. Though someone could occasionnaly refer to some great historical figure, there are no set of characters who are singled out and considered as more authoritative than others figures.

Also,such quotes would be an illustration, not an argument per se, and wouldn’t require any refutation.

And finally, you would find them in sholar works and intellectual debates, not in ordinary debates between ordinary citizens about social issues.

26

Wumpus,
Very interesting post, which seems to sum up quite clearly most of the arguments posted here (including mine). Thanks.

27

We need to understand their intent precisely because we need to follow their intent, not figure out how to make an end run around the Constitution. Otherwise, we end up on the trash heap of history as abject failure, at least in theory. That certainly isn’t what they had in mind. Consider that ours is the longest national Constitution around, tattered though it may be. This country is, after all, merely an Experiment. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

One nicety of our system of government is precisely because it isn’t necessary (nor desirable, some might add) to be a scholar to understand much of our guiding principles. Not to be anti-intellectual, but sometimes it’s best not to try and overanalyze things.

The founding fathers deserve additional respect for being forward thinking, and forging a political system that (theoretically) vests the power in the people, while not descending into total mob rule, ala democracy, which has failed miserably and spectacularly before.

28

Clairobscur,

I don’t think you read it. Really I don’t. The concepts detailed in the Second Treatise alone, would be extremely difficult to digest in a week, much less a few hours. Philosophy requires a great deal of pondering, and quite frankly time, to discover hidden meanings. Your dismissal of my claims with judgements of my views, are exactly why I stated that you should READ his works. Come argue with fact, not innuendo and semantics.

Funny you should mention religion. I myself claim to follow no religious order. However, (here we go again) philosophers, and historians the world over will agree with my telling you that in Locke’s first work,
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
he proves the existence of God. The “Essay” took over twenty years to write. Please don’t tell me you have read it when next you post, it is 3 or 4 hundred pages long, and extremely deep reading. (as philosophy should be)

To enlighten you further, Thomas Jefferson based the principles of liberty and the Declaration of Independence on the works of Locke. In fact several direct references to Locke are found in the document. So you may know.

“and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station that the //laws of nature, and natures God //(Lockian principles, see “the state of nature”)-- entitle them. A decent respect, to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes that impel us to the separation.” (Locke touts revolution as a just means for mankind to force government to obey its people)

We hold these truths to be self evident.
(The next five ideas were each and every one of them used by Locke to PROVE and I mean PROVE, the natural laws and rights of man.)

  1. That all men are created equal.
  2. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
  3. That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Happiness equating to Property)
  4. That to SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men, deriving their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.
  5. 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 institute new government.

Again when you have read The Second Treatise on Government, you will find your opinions changed. The U.S. government, as well as all free democratic governments are based on the Lockian principles. The reason that the Founding Fathers are quoted so often is------ The U.S. Constitution was the FIRST written Constitution, placing the rights of the people above all other rights. The Declaration inspired the French in their revolution of 1789. Those crooks, or smugglers that some misinformed individual states started this county were PATRIOTS. Not patriotic. “A Patriot seldom agrees with his government.” (Greg Hanson)

Now if you have not seen Locke mentioned in many debates about the principles of U.S. government, or its Constitution, you have been arguing with fools. Any first year History major is aware of the Lockian principles. When you read the volumes of Jeffersonian writings, Locke’s concepts appear, reappear, and are proven again. Does anybody get this yet?

Finally, while no Official list, of founders has been advanced, the people most often included would be, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Washington, Franklin, Samuel, and John Adams, and all those who attended the constitutional convention, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Food for though—Who established the separation of church and state. It appears nowhere in the Constitution, but was mandated by a very special person. The fact is that it is God himself who demands the separation. Whoever figures out why—wins a cookie. Hint Locke proved this one as well.

Later Dudes

29

All too many do though. And it is a bad thing.
When someone has strong faith in something it is difficult to impossible for them to consider it in a rational manner. The sacredness of our constitution perverts the public discourse. It’s bad enough that individuals use age-old quotes in place of rational argument. Worse is the concept that fidelity to the past has any inherent value. The Constitution is accepted as Truth. People will contradict an idea as unconstitutional as if that had anything to do with the idea’s merit ( Fallacious Appeal to Law anyone? ) Some of our politicians will oppose legislation without further discussion because in their opinion it violates the Holy Writ.

As an American who argues not only that it is broken but that the thing is so fundamentally flawed that there is no point in trying to fix it, I have observed a pattern in responses to my position. Disbelief followed by anger. First it is assumed that I simply don’t understand. When it becomes clear that I do comprehend but don’t agree, and worse that my position is too strong for them to debate me out of it, opponents get upset and say nasty things about me. Believers don’t like it when someone questions their icons.

The book I recomend for overall constitutional understanding is Daniel Lazare’s The Frozen Republic, How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy which begins in this manner:

From there the book plunges deeper into heresy. But it is a heresy that Americans should familiarize themselves with even if they can’t bring themselves to agree.

Other points:

cmkeller is mistaken.
It certainly is possible to say, in effect, “to heck with the intent of those who wrote the laws”. That’s how the constitutional crisis of 1937 was solved. Americans demanded government do something to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression and the old constitutional understanding stood in the way. By '37 Roosevelt had enormous public support and was threatening to add six justices to the Supreme Court to get them to stop overturning social programs. Then Justice Owen J. Roberts changed his opinion ( “the switch in time that saved nine” ) and now we have the welfare state that conservatives love to hate.

Humble Servant quotes and links to an article by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr ( which I haven’t read yet ) asserting that the Federalist Papers were well written. That depends on what is meant by the term. Cogent argument they are not. I certainly couldn’t match his flowery prose but if Jimmy Madison tried to float #40 in this forum I’d tear him a new asshole. The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government [sup]weren’t[/sup] Examined [sup]very closely because if they were they wouldn’t have been[/sup] Sustained. These “Gospels” were written for the same purpose as the originals: to gain converts. They shouldn’t be viewed, as they commonly are, as objective explanations of the system. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay had an axe to grind. We should also remember that however important these writings are today they weren’t widely read at the time ( by those that could read ) nor did they have much impact on the ratification of the Constitution. The “Federalists” main tactic was surprise.

ExTank makes the point that it would be more difficult to compromise today on new constitution. I agree but not for the reason he gives. It would be more difficult because a convention today would have to represent, or pretend to represent, more diverse interests than just those of the wealthy white men our present constitution was designed to serve. Also, we need to realize that the Framers had a strong incentive to reach an agreement. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union didn’t include a provision to regulate trade between the states. States raised tariffs on out-of-state goods and this was costing these men of property. Shay’s Rebellion was another factor. It had shown them how unsuited the current government was to deal with large numbers of regular Americans who might take up arms to protest the gross inequity of wealth. I bet that if aliens with godlike technology came down tomorrow and told us they were going to confiscate ten percent of each American’s wealth every month until we could agree on a new basic law we could get it done before too long.

Finally I have some things to say about Thomas Jefferson.
It is often overlooked ( even by my hero Danny Lazare ) that there is a difference between the Founders ( or Founding Fathers ) and the Framers. The Founders’ names can be found on the Declaration of Independence and the Framers’ on the Constitution. There are some who were in both groups but Mr Jefferson is not one of them. He did sign the Declaration ( recent scholarship suggests that it is a bit of an overstatement to say he authored it ) but did not attend the federal convention as he was in France in '87. Thus the argument that his words are quoted so frequently because they illuminate original intent are bogus. His intent didn’t shape the Constitution but I see more quotes from him than anyone else.

Just because he isn’t a Framer doesn’t mean he escapes my ire. There are some quotes of his that I do like though ( hardly surprising given the contradictory nature of his writings ).
Here’s my favorite:

Just my 2sense
We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government - Garry Wills

30

Only a fool would argue that the people who want to disassemble the Constitution don’t understand it, at least nominally.

Okay, what do you propose to replace it with?

31

clairobscur, if I understand your question correctly, you ask, why do Americans revere their Founding Fathers? You then cite, as an example of this reverence, some American habit of quoting a FF in a debate, then arguing about what the quote means, rather than asking why the quote even matters. Please correct me if I have this wrong, for it forms the basis for my answer.

Why quote FF because it is a valid form of Constitutional argument. We have six forms of Constitutional argument.
[ul]
[li]Textual - Read the text of the relevant sections and apply them to the question at hand.[/li][li]Prudential - This is an argument of practicality. What would be a practical solution to the problem at hand.[/li][li]Structural - An argument based on how our government is framed. This can refer to the fact that we split our federal government into three separate branches, or can refer to the federal/state dichotomy. Here, you look to the mechanics of how our government is form to try to find a solution to the problem.[/li][li]Precedential - By golly, we’ve done it this way before, we’ll do it again. Here’s where you try to find the solution through reference to our existing case law.[/li][li]Intent - This is the intent of the ratifers of the Constitution. I’ve referred to this before. Here, you try to find a solution to the problem by reference to what the people who gave the document legal meaning thought that meaning was.[/li][li]Ethical (sometimes replaced by Moral or Philosophical) - Here, ethical refers to a Greek word ethos, and is used in reference to what it means to be American. It’s a strange form of argument, that seems to boil down to what makes us us.[/li][/ul]

These are the forms of argument that judges and lawyers make when deciding case, but they are also available to anyone else trying to determine the meaning of the Constitution. So, any part of government, in deciding a Constitutional question can use these forms of argument. Even us people who aren’t the government, can use this form of argument. I suspect, if you read through threads relating to questions of American Constitutional law, you will identify each of these types of arguments.
When you do that, you’ll also notice that we make reference to a group of influential jurists. We do that note out of any particular reverence for them, but because they understand their issues, explained them well, and gave us rationales for their cases that were right and could be used to decide future matters.

Still, you asked about the FF. Consider how our government was created. I believe, but I don’t know for certain, that the formation of our government differs a bit from other nations - even Western European nations. A group of people got together and proposed a Constitution. Then a group of thirteen smaller political entities got together, and decided to give that document legal meaning - they ratified it. Suddenly, we had a form of government, seemingly bound by a specific set of rules, with a specific set of powers. My understanding of British history suggests that this is not the history of the present British government.

We refer to FF and other authors from that time people as one method of understanding what our form of government means. Very few people suggest that this is an invalid form of argument. Strangely, if you check our jurisprudence on the right to jury trial, you’ll find that an important component of it is what was the right to a jury in 1791 in the US and Britain. Some days this is baffling, but it gives us an idea of what the ratifers meant when they referred to a right to a jury trial.

If you have another question, such as why do we like the Founding Fathers, it might be because we like the US, and we think they had something to do with getting it started.

32

2sense wrote:

Woo hoo! Now this looks like fuel for a real debate!

I am interested in knowing what you believe these fundamental flaws are. Is it the lack of direct democracy inherent in an elected Congress? Is it the placing of total military power in the hands of a single President?

(Admittedly, it’s gonna be hard to convince anyone that the basis for the U.S. government is fundamentally flawed, at a time when the U.S. is the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth.)

33

Just so no one misses this, note 2sense’s words: “that depends on what is meant by the term,” and “weren’t widely read (by those who could read).” The Federalist essays were originally published in newspaper installments (yes, for the purpose of encouraging ratification of the Constitution after the convention), and they were widely read; 2sense just has a low opinion of those doing the reading. Many people, including me, think highly of the language and expository power of the arguments.Here is another link which gives some of the history of The Federalist and cites some of those who have admired it.

Back briefly to the Mansfield article linked: most Americans who do not think much about how political systems are best structured probably do think the Constitution is a good thing and a settled one. We learn the facts about it at school and we learn how it works today and we learn, rightly or wrongly, that the people who led the US in the Revolutionary War and through the crisis of birth did a pretty good job. Most Americans are able to ignore politics except once every four years and to get on with their personal business, lives and enthusiasms–most people don’t debate the Constitution because it works well enough from their perspective, making the debate for them closed. This doesn’t mean that this is a good thing or that there are not lots of people who do think about these things; there are, and Mansfield is one of them.

On the “demi-god” front, people are always asking little kids who their heroes are, and then lamenting the fact that actors and athletes are named instead of war heroes or do-gooders. Mansfield seems to try to understand the men who founded America as men–he is regretting the tendency to make any men demi-gods, but suggesting that it would be better to make demi-gods of these talented guys who were trying to found a just country on a principled basis (whether they succeeded or not) than of pop stars.

34

Sorry 2sense not so,

I am not completely sure what point you are trying to convey in your post but you tell me if I am mistaken. Starting with the quote from Jefferson

quote:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

Jefferson always reminded people that government had to change according to the needs and wishes of the people. He was fully aware that the Constitution would need to be adjusted as time past. He also realized that the Constitution could be applied, differently to different situation without being altered. A very good example is the classic Supreme Court decision of Marbury -v- Madison (1803) This decision was reached during his presidency. Jefferson was of a different political party then the first two presidents. In an attempt to cause a Constitutional crisis Jefferson’s party repealed an act of Congress which set up lower courts, along with other things. This case was a monumental triumph for the Constitution, and a blow to those who wished to cause a partisan crisis. The most important issue in the ruling centers on the Constitution.

Paraphrasing:

When two laws apply to a situation, one being found in the Constitution, and one an act of Congress, if they conflict, it is obvious that the Constitution must prevail. Under Article VI “This Constitution, and all treaties both foreign and domestic, and all laws of the United states, and of the States, MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, shall be the Supreme law of the land.” The Constitution is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, only those laws made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the Constitution shall be deemed to be law.

The nation is based on the Supreme law of the law, which in short is Liberty and the right to order your life as you see fit. Government is to assist the people in this matter. The rights guartanteed by the Constitution prevent government from controlling the will of the people. Further, all people have the same rights. These rights are based on the Lockian principles with respect to Natural Law, and why mankind enters into society. It is very difficult to argue that anyone would enter into society, if they were told that they would not have the same rights as everyone else. By my thinking impossible to argue.

In the State of Nature, where everyone is equal, you are your own judge, jury, and executioner. When mankind enters into society, his gives up some of his natural rights, and empowers a government to enforce the rules of society. However, government can never take away his unalienable rights because mankind has not given government the authority to do so. When it does try to infringe on his rights—“An Usurper and any deriving from him, hath no right to be obeyed, since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and, consequently, not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented, to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped.” John Locke
You state in your post about how you understand the Constitution, how your arguments are “too strong to debate me out of” I become confused. The book you quote does not display one concrete item to base an opinion on, by your own words you say that (after the posted excerpt), “it plunges into further hearsy,” may I suggest the quoted part is hearsy as well?

As for you being able to “tear him a new asshole,” referring to Madison, get real dude. Not only have you not read his works, you still haven’t stated one concrete idea.

As for the signers of the Declaration, and the framers of the Constitution not being the same, wrong, wrong, wrong. You do not “pledge our life, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, to support this Declartion,” (revolution) and not see it instilled in the fabric of the nation you create. This should be obvious. Further for your information Thomas Jefferson is considered by all who understand and have STUDIED history, to be “THE FATHER OF THE NATION.” I didn’t say this, several million scholars have stated it for over two hundred years. I don’t know where you come off thinking you are an authority. The only authority you possess is your mouth.

Facts, don’t fall to heresy, generalities, or those who think they are enlightened. The U.S. Constitution is the model for all free society. This FACT has been established over the last 225 years. As you view the world, societies are moving toward Constitutional government, not away. Only military might, and the actions of tyrants, forestall the advancement of liberty. The Communist revolution has been shown to be a failure. The Islamic fundamentalists need not even be debated. The dictators of the world are going the way of the dinosaurs, but freedom, and the principles FIRST laid down by the Constitution, and those who set up this “pop stand” will never be defeated. The reason is-- how can you defeat yourself, and your own wishes. Get it!! Got it!! Good!!!

“Government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth.” Abraham Lincoln

Your post is worth your handle

35

To the Forum,

To try to debate the issues of the Constitution, without having read the Constitution and The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke, quite frankly is impossible.

I have noted people who try to state facts about John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, or the ideals and principles of the era. They use semantics to say that Jefferson was not one of the framers, or that the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with the Constitution, both these ideas are so ludicrous, I will not offer proof here.

For proof you must read all three of the afore mention Documents. Once done, believe me, you will see the obvious, and total relationship between all of them. Society, like science builds on facts and the works of others. Society, unlike science, is usually NOT self correcting. Power and wisdom, are seldom held by the same person.

The Constitution establishes the rights and privilege of people, over power and authority. It defuses the will of tyrants, and those who wish to make their will the law, and protects everyone’s right to self determination. While most of the protections are found in the Amendments, many are not. Article VI forces those who are in power, “to be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution”

In my previous post I paraphrased what Article VI states, I was not 100% clear when I did this. so…

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I usually attempt to be more precise. As 2sense correctly stated, I was a little miffed at him. (The only thing he got right)

I am not an authority on the Constitution, but I am close. As I stated before the Constitution was created to be a flexible and changing document. Things do change, and enlightened people change as well. But, to be enlightened, you must read that which you are trying to refute. I would consider this reasoning to be a concluded fact.

36

One more thing,

I don’t know where the idea came from that Jefferson did not write the Declaration of Independence but

Fact
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia behind a veil of Congressionally imposed secrecy in June 1776 for a country wracked by military and political uncertainties. In anticipation of a vote for independence, the Continental Congress on June 11 appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston as a committee to draft a declaration of independence. The committee then delegated Thomas Jefferson to undertake the task. Jefferson worked diligently in private for days to compose a document

Jefferson then made a clean or “fair” copy of the composition declaration, which became the foundation of the document, labeled by Jefferson as the “original Rough draught.” Revised first by Adams, then by Franklin, and then by the full committee, a total of forty-seven alterations including the insertion of three complete paragraphs was made on the text before it was presented to Congress on June 28.

After voting for independence on July 2, the Congress then continued to refine the document, making thirty-nine additional revisions to the committee draft before its final adoption on the morning of July 4.

The “original Rough draught” embodies the multiplicity of corrections, additions and deletions that were made at each step. Although most of the alterations are in Jefferson’s handwriting (Jefferson later indicated the changes he believed to have been made by Adams and Franklin), quite naturally he opposed many of the changes made to his document.

Now since most revisions were in his own handwritting, and Jefferson later indicated which alterations were made by others, I think it is fair to conclude who wrote it.

For the record, most of the revisions, simply centered on word, and phrase arrangement. The principles which it stood for were written by Jefferson “without the benefit of book or phamphlet.”

He wrote this document from his beliefs, his education and the ideas which Locke had instilled in him.

37

As an aside to the main thrust of this thread…

Frankly, this was my reaction to this example; it can happen that Disraeli gets cited in political arguments in the UK, but it happens very rarely. A search of the main Tory broadsheet newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, shows that he was mentioned 18 times in the last year. Of these, most are either trivial historical references (“since Disraeli”) or striking phrases (“lies, damned lies and statistics”). The latter hardly count, given that he was also famous amongst contemporaries as a novelist, and none of the quotes are necessarily controversal. It so happens that the only directly political reference is the most recent: a comparison between Tory leadership contender Iain Duncan Smith, who frequently rebelled against his party in Parliament during the 90s, and Disraeli and Churchill, who previously did. But even this is hardly an appeal to non-partisan authority.

Since no US newspaper seems to have quite so accessable a website, I couldn’t make a comparison with any of the US founding fathers. But the point remains - Disraeli isn’t particularly a citable authority, even amongst Tories. And I can’t think of any pre-20th-century figure who is …

It is true that political argument in Britain will cite historical figure, but only by way of colour, relevant example or fortunate phrasing.

38

Bonzer,

People before the 20th century not quotable? I really feel sorry for you.

Political people? Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Madison.

Non political, Newton, Da Vinche(sp), Galileo, Edison.

If you need more, try reading instead of writing, listening instead of talking.

39

GREAT question! Here’s my unassailable answer:

*“Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided
by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.”
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. *

The phrase you picked out wasn’t a challenge to debate. I explained my position because if you aren’t familiar with it then you can’t understand why people shouting at me leads me to believe that there is a strong ideological attachment to the Constitution.

Yes America has been successful, if we define success as wealth and power. If we define it as maintaining a love of peace that would preclude genocide then we haven’t done so good. If given a choice between a less efficient trading federation along the Atlantic seaboard and America as we know it today at the price we paid, and the far greater price we extracted from others, I would choose the former - YMMV. In any case our success in no way contradicts my position. Please note that in response to ExTank I pointed out that the glue that held the federal convention together were the universal desires to make more money and keep others from interfering with that pursuit.

To continue the topic, to my knowledge I have never convinced anyone that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed so if I defined success on that basis I’d be failing miserably. I feel that I’m doing pretty good if I don’t make too many errors; logical, factual, or stylistic, and aren’t forced to concede too many points. Sometimes I grade myself on a curve. Hopefully I’ve caused people to think about the Constitution in a different manner. I feel my main contribution to this forum is my unique viewpoint. Others here are brighter than I and have studied the Constitution longer and in more depth but they weren’t looking for flaws.

Humble Servant,

It’s late and I’m not going to be able to finish this post.
I thought I had a cite for “not widely read” and spent too much time tonight searching the web for evidence that they weren’t circulated outside of New York. I didn’t find any evidence either way but since I have the burden of proof I have to concede that I can’t meet it. I withdraw the assertion. I do accept that it was read in New York and didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t widely known elsewhere after Washington took office. Furthermore I went too far in my critique of the work last night and now would like to soften my position a bit. The Federalist Papers do contain some cogent arguments. In particular in #10 which I have used arguments from.

So I have left:
They were well-written ( from a stylistic viewpoint ).
Some of the arguments are invalid.
#40 is indefensable.
Publius had an axe to grind.
They didn’t have much impact on the ratification of the Constitution. ( Which I cite from the Columbia Encyclopedia ).

That’s all I have time for now.
Ah, I love the smell of success in the morning!
G’nite.

Just my 2sense
[sup]( Nothing clever to say. )[/sup]

40

2sense, did you ever wonder why people get upset when you propose tossing the Constitution in the garbage? Why do you think that happens?

In my experience, the people who want to throw out the Constitution invariably wish to establish some form of theocracy, dictatorship, or police state.

You may or may not wish to enslave the rest of us, but perhaps a little reflection would reveal why people jump to the conclusion that you do.

And of course, your proposal to rewrite the consitution every generation has a constitutional basis, namely the calling of a constitutional convention. If you want to rewrite the constitution, perhaps you should work to get enough states to call for one. Personally, I highly doubt that a constitutional convention could devise a better document than what we have. And if we are only going to make some small changes, then the amendment process works fine.