# If the Founding Fathers could see us now **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640 "2012-12-20T17:21:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/61 "2012-12-21T02:48:10Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They would realize the Constitution failed as a document to protect individual liberty. Could I trouble you for a few examples of infringements on your liberty? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/62 "2012-12-21T03:19:31Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Given the opportunity to see contemporary America, I expect that Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Monroe, and even Franklin would be too paralyzed by future shock to have meaningful opinions. . . . I wonder. I think, if they were brought up to date gradually, they’d cope. People from much more primitive societies have managed to encompass modern societies. It isn’t easy for them, but, ultimately, people are still people. Don’t drop 'em in the middle of Times Square (like Captain America) but give 'em some coaching. They’d be fine. Personally, I think they’d be impressed as hell. “You’ve been to the Moon? Wow!” Definitely, as several have noted, they would have very different views on a lot of things. Some would be appalled that we are members of the United Nations; others would wonder why the hell the U.N. isn’t the real functioning government of the world with the U.S. as one “state” in the new “union.” Some would wonder why we still have poverty; others would wonder why we don’t have gigantic family-owned farming plantations any more. I’m pretty sure, overall, they’d nod sagely and say, “Well enough done; well enough.” ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/63 "2012-12-21T05:45:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Could I trouble you for a few examples of infringements on your liberty? I am not entitled to the fruits of my labor. I am required to register for the draft. I can’t start my own business without following a myriad of federal regulations. If I travel by air, I am subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. I could be monitored by the federal government without warrant. I could be assassinated without due process if a power hungry sociopath with great campaigning skills, who cobbles together a majority coalition by promising certain groups special treatment, is elected to office. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/64 "2012-12-21T06:30:58Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Exactly what in that history would have led to that regret? > > CMC Oh idk the most deadly conflict in the history of the continent? Secession, or the threat thereof, would limit the power of the federal government. Some founders would appreciate this, while others would not. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/65 "2012-12-21T06:43:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think this is really that complicated. You proposed that they would have supported the right of states and individuals to secede. I pointed out that some of them actually faced a secession situation and did not support the right of states to secede. To me, that makes it unlikely they would have come around to your position. I disagree. They never got to see the consequences of omitting a right to secession. The consequences of not allowing secession include the Civil War. This was a big turn towards imperialism in the US. I don’t think the founders wouldn’t have been interested in Mr. Lincoln’s view of the Constitution and the accompanying increase in federal power. Especially the etatism favored by the old Whig Abe Lincoln. ETA: of course when I say “founders” I mean “some of the founders who I am more ideologically inclined to, including Madison” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/66 "2012-12-21T06:55:51Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > . . . I could be assassinated without due process if a power hungry sociopath with great campaigning skills, who cobbles together a majority coalition by promising certain groups special treatment, is elected to office. But that’s true, anytime, anywhere, ever, in any human society. You might as well say, “I’m not safe from being murdered by some crackpot.” Yeah, true; you aren’t. But that isn’t a rational indictment of our system of government. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/67 "2012-12-21T07:07:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But that’s true, anytime, anywhere, ever, in any human society. You might as well say, “I’m not safe from being murdered by some crackpot.” Yeah, true; you aren’t. But that isn’t a rational indictment of our system of government. I’m not asking to be protected from crackpots. I’m asking for due process as promised in the Constitution. If a government can’t keep to the rule of law, that government is unacceptable. That’s rule one. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/68 "2012-12-21T10:04:44Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I am not entitled to the fruits of my labor. I am required to register for the draft. I can’t start my own business without following a myriad of federal regulations. If I travel by air, I am subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. I could be monitored by the federal government without warrant. I could be assassinated without due process if a power hungry sociopath with great campaigning skills, who cobbles together a majority coalition by promising certain groups special treatment, is elected to office. You are required to register for selective service, and are fortunate enough to live in the only period of American history where no draft occurs, or is likely to occur, or is politically feasible to enact. Washington commanded conscripts. States required able bodied men to join militias and receive training. In 1778, the continental congress, those founding fathers who are bastions of liberty, required the states draft men from their militias to serve in the continental army for a period of 1 year. You get a pat down. I fully agree it is annoying, but it is hardly onerous. You’ve always been able to be monitored by the government without a warrant. Perhaps you meant to suggest that the monitoring can now be used against you in certain circumstances? As for due process, they certainly didn’t seem to think it was all that important, considering they exempted members of the armed services from it(which remains to this day. Go liberty!). Plus it says ‘No person’, not ‘No citizen’, something that seems to have been ignored by almost all past presidents. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/69 "2012-12-21T10:12:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Seriously now: if a bunch of aristocratic 18th-century slaveowners who thought women and non-property owners didn’t deserve to vote and thought Native Americans were an inconvenience wanted to tell me that the government I voted for is too tyrannical, I would have no problem telling them to fuck off. And in one glorious swoop, Marley23 anticipates **WillFarnaby** ’s handful of whining posts and dismantles them before they were even posted. Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/70 "2012-12-21T10:33:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > If a government can’t keep to the rule of law, that government is unacceptable. That’s rule one. The government set up by the founders did not deliver the promises of the Constitution to the majority of the adult population and never intended to. Political suppression of poor whites ended around 1830 with the end of a property requirement to vote. Blacks continued to be denied voting rights until the 20th century in some states. Women, of course, not until 1920. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/71 "2012-12-21T12:13:49Z")
This seems to be more of an IMHO thread than GD, not that it matters. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Perhaps, but I don’t think they’d find fault with the Constitution itself, but rather our interpretation of it. No doubt. However, I bet they’d agree with the ruling that the Constitution implies a right to privacy, but not its application in Roe v Wade. > [@Kearsen](#): > > Actually i think what gets forgotten is that they actually reached agreement at all. Right, and also how much compromise and capitulation was involved, the two biggest probably being federalism and slavery. The former was somewhat held in check; the latter was mostly ignored (permitting progress but sewing the seeds for the Civil War, as a country so divided cannot long endure. I bet they’d be deeply ambivalent. Most would think the Federal government had overreached their intent, and they’d lament the way party politics dominates, rather than serving the country (as I suspect we all do – at least, I HOPE we all do). I sure wish I knew of some kind of poison pill amendment that would reduce partisanship, but I can’t think of any cure that isn’t worse than the disease. In any case, I agree with **John Mace** that we should give them time to thaw, and that while their opinions would be very interesting, we shouldn’t allow them to dominate. I even wonder how many of them would end up being strict constructionists. I’m in favor of strict constructionism, but we can’t institute it all of a sudden at this late date. Too much history went the other way, and we’d need amendments to keep up. It just might be that the amendment process was a tad to difficult. (In general I think they got that pretty close, since we don’t want heaps of amendments. We also don’t want, IMHO, a 4000-page constitution, like the EU almost got.) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/72 "2012-12-21T13:59:23Z")
Thanks for responding. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I am not entitled to the fruits of my labor. You may not like keeping 100% of your income, but without taxation you wouldn’t have the infrastructure or secuirty that makes your income possible. > [@](#): > > I am required to register for the draft Nations require standing armies and the ability to quickly organize a large one in the event of war. Your registration may offend you, but it makes rapid mobilization possible in the event it is needed. > [@](#): > > I can’t start my own business without following a myriad of federal regulations. Depends what it is. If you want to open a meat market, the rest of us have a vested interest in not getting sick from your meat and the inspection and storage of your wares is a matter of public health. If there are regulations that you think are unneeded those could be debated. > [@](#): > > I travel by air, I am subject to unreasonable searches and seizures But the rest of us want to get to our destination in one piece so we don’t mind having you pass through a detector because our lives may very well depend on it. > [@](#): > > I could be assassinated without due process if a power hungry sociopath with great campaigning skills, who cobbles together a majority coalition by promising certain groups special treatment, is elected to office. Easiest way to avoid that would be not to become a terrorist. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/73 "2012-12-21T14:15:34Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > ETA: Given that at least two of those gentlemen might well have owned me had I been alive during their time, and would have declined to free me before their deaths if even then, I don’t see why I should give a damn what they’d think on issues of social justice. In fairness, if you’re going to owned by someone, Washington’s not a bad choice as bragging rights go. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/74 "2012-12-21T15:21:27Z")
I don’t dispute that the Articles of Confederacy didn’t address the needs of the new nation adequately, and I’m not claiming (for the purposes of this discussion anyway) that a minarchist libertarian society should have been attempted. What I’m claiming is that those who agreed to ratify the new Constitution- many with misgivings- ended up buying a pig in a poke. I’m still going through the Federalist/ Anti-Federalist debates (links below), but to name just two example related to firearms: In the AntiFederalist #23, addressing the power of the proposed Congress to maintain a standing army, it says in part: > [@](#): > > Whether the clause which empowers the Congress to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry this into execution, will not authorise them to impress men for the army, is a question well worthy [of] consideration. If the general legislature deem it for the general welfare to raise a body of troops, and they cannot be procured by voluntary enlistments, it seems evident, that it will be proper and necessary to effect it, that men be impressed from the militia to make up the deficiency. Bear in mind that pressing men into a national army was considered virtually slavery at the time. And that’s exactly what happened in WW1, when the Supreme Court upheld conscription into the national army in Arver v. United States, on precisely the grounds of it being “proper and necessary” to empower the declaration of war. In the Federalist #29, Hamilton dismissed fears over giving the federal government power over the militia, or establishing a limited militia: > [@](#): > > By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. And in fact “select corps” is exactly what we got, when the last vestige of the older citizen’s militia was transformed in the modern National Guard (though we now say “organized” rather than “select”.) The Anti-Federalist papers: [http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm](http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm) The Federalist papers: [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html](http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/75 "2012-12-21T15:37:24Z")
In Federalist 46, Madison pointed out that there was no need to worry about that (and he was right, at the time): > [@](#): > > Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. > > To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/76 "2012-12-21T16:18:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Thanks for responding. > > You may not like keeping 100% of your income, but without taxation you wouldn’t have the infrastructure or secuirty that makes your income possible. > > Nations require standing armies and the ability to quickly organize a large one in the event of war. Your registration may offend you, but it makes rapid mobilization possible in the event it is needed. > > Depends what it is. If you want to open a meat market, the rest of us have a vested interest in not getting sick from your meat and the inspection and storage of your wares is a matter of public health. If there are regulations that you think are unneeded those could be debated. > > But the rest of us want to get to our destination in one piece so we don’t mind having you pass through a detector because our lives may very well depend on it. > Easiest way to avoid that would be not to become a terrorist. I said that my personal liberty is not being protected. I didn’t say there haven’t been inadequate reasons put forth by politicians to justify the lapses in protection. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/77 "2012-12-21T16:23:09Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > The government set up by the founders did not deliver the promises of the Constitution to the majority of the adult population and never intended to. Political suppression of poor whites ended around 1830 with the end of a property requirement to vote. Blacks continued to be denied voting rights until the 20th century in some states. Women, of course, not until 1920. And that was unacceptable. Not sure why you think I am in favor of political suppression. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/78 "2012-12-21T16:27:14Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I said that my personal liberty is not being protected. I didn’t say there haven’t been inadequate reasons put forth by politicians to justify the lapses in protection. OK, but now, having staked out that position, the burden is on you to show the inadequacy – and to show that the FFs would have agreed in your judgment of same. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/79 "2012-12-21T16:28:46Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > As for due process, they certainly didn’t seem to think it was all that important, considering they exempted members of the armed services from it(which remains to this day. Go liberty!). Plus it says ‘No person’, not ‘No citizen’, something that seems to have been ignored by almost all past presidents. Sure, it wasn’t important to them at all. That’s why they included it in the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/80 "2012-12-21T16:29:23Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In the Federalist #29, Hamilton dismissed fears over giving the federal government power over the militia, or establishing a limited militia: > > > [@](#): > > > > By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. > > And in fact “select corps” is exactly what we got, when the last vestige of the older citizen’s militia was transformed in the modern National Guard (though we now say “organized” rather than “select”.) Maybe so, but the past two-plus centuries have proven Hamilton entirely right, in his view that it is ridiculous for us to “apprehend danger” from such a militia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640.md?page=5)