I don't care what the Founding Fathers would have wanted

[edhopper]

[Bayard]

1. Food for thought

But that would do away with the Constitution, and gawd knows what would replace it.

[Irish_Dem]

2. A political framework is one thing. Long dead men dictating social norms is another thing.

[thesquanderer]

11. Every framework is created by people who will eventually be long dead.

So either you want to establish a framework that will last (and ours does, at least in theory, provide for a way to amend it); or you periodically toss out that framework (say, x years after its creators have died), and then the legal system becomes whatever the whims of the moment support. So, as you might guess, I do not think the idea of creating laws independent of an established foundation is a good idea. Better to fix the foundation than to ditch it.

[Irish_Dem]

23. I could argue the framework is lousy. It let a crime syndicate take over our government,

and install fascist white male christian minority rule.

[harumph]

25. That's true - our constitution was experimental at the time.

Since then other countries have improved on our
experiment in democracy, whereas some of the fatal flaws baked into
our constitution from the beginning are increasingly problematic. The universal declaration of
human rights is FAR FAR superior to our constitution. If I had the $ to get the
fuck out of here - I would.

[Irish_Dem]

31. I am only second generation American, and we have paid our dues. Would love to leave.

My father, first generation Irish American, was career (USAF) military, he flew combat in three American wars. All of this left him in not great shape.

His brother, my uncle, was US Navy and killed during the WWII Battle of Guadalcanal.

So we have paid up whatever the US gave us.

My daughter is gay, and worries about her future, and any children she may have in the future.
She and her girlfriend are talking about moving to Canada. For a better life for them and their children. I don't blame them.

It is going to get much worse in this country before it gets better, that is if it does get better.
We may have lived during the golden age of this country and didn't realize it.

[Phoenix61]

5. No it wouldn't.

The branches of government would still exist.

[thesquanderer]

15. re: "The branches of government would still exist"

Not if you void the Constitution. The Constitution includes the set of rules that establishes the three branches of government.

[Phoenix61]

16. Who said anything about voiding the constitution?

There’s a lot of space between “don’t pass a law the founding fathers wouldn’t like” and “toss the constitution”

[thesquanderer]

33. The way the thread reads...

... post #1 brought up voiding the constitution, and your replies seemed to be to that point. But maybe I misunderstood.

[Phoenix61]

35. Literally my post.

No it wouldn't.
The branches of government would still exist.

[thesquanderer]

38. Right, I just read it differently from how you intended it.

I thought you were saying the Constitution would still exist because the branches of government would exist. So like I said, misunderstanding.

[KPN]

12. No it wouldn't. How so? There's nothing in the

Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2022, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Constitution that says how it should be interpreted. There is no requirement in the Constitution that says we must do what the “founding fathers” would have done. That’s a bullshit ideological — and also supremacist, not democratic — interpretation.

[edhopper]

13. How about since there is no agreed on interpretaion

of what the Founders thought, as evidence from this Court. We use it as a guide and not a religious text.

[malthaussen]

26. Well, no.

The Constitution is on record, and is the law of the land. It is not speculation or assertion of what the Founders might have thought.

"What would Jesus Do" and "What would the Founders think" is not a matter of documentary evidence, it is speculation and assertion based on whatever vague "feelings" the one asking the question has. It is putting words into the mouths of the dead, not addressing the words that were put on record.

Hence, the Constitution would not be rendered obsolete. Further, the Constitution is the Original Compact by which the nation was founded, it is a contract between the People and the Government. As such, it is the basis and legitimization of that Government. It is not affected by random thoughts of what some agrarian nobleman might have said if he had been drinking that day.

-- Mal

[Lonestarblue]

29. The Constitution was written by white men for white men, and mostly for property owners.

The needs and rights of women and minorities were totally ignored in spite of Abigail Adams’ plea to remember the ladies. The Founders were products of their time, but they recognized that times would change and wisely included a means for adjusting the laws of the land to reflect those changes. The problem we have today is not with the Founders or the Constitution. It is with a Republican Party bent on achieving power anyway it can, whether that is appointing radicals to the Supreme Court, attempting to overthrow the legal government, or rigging elections to their favor.

The Republican Party would dearly love to repeal every amendment after the Bill of Rights. Some have even proposed that if they ever control enough Republican states to call a convention to rewrite the Constitution. I shudder to think what would happen if that day ever comes.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

37. "The Republican Party bent on achieving power anyway it can."

The GQP as a whole probably has the same or similar attitude toward abortion as the rest of the country. About 2/3 of the adult population want abortion to be legal. The common emphasis is that whether or not to end a pregnancy is solely the woman's choice. The doctor provides information and advice and the skill to ensure the procedure is done safely.


Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has."

[DENVERPOPS]

36. This group of Republican Fascist

know exactly what they would do to replace it.....that's very evident these past years.......


Many have read Orswell's ANIMAL FARM decades ago...... Get your copies out and read it again while reflecting on the Republicans/Trump these past five years.
If reading it doesn't scare the shit out of you, it should...........

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Constitution was supposed to be a "living" document with renewal by elections on a rolling basis

Instead we have cement heads.

[Magoo48]

24. Yup,

A process can be developed to approach our constitution is such a way as to protect and enhance our freedoms while safeguarding our common welfare and making the document current.

[unblock]

4. The founders would have revolted against Donnie.

They revolted against a similar tyrant.

[Shermann]

21. George III's mental deficiencies weren't even as bad nt

[MissMillie]

6. What people tend to forget (or even not realize)

is that at the time the Constitution was written, abortion up to about 20 weeks was legal in the United States.

It's quite possible that the framers either:

a) considered the issue to be settled law; or

b) didn't consider it at all because they were all men.



While Alito likes to call up "history" to defend his decision, he very conveniently leaves this history out.

[benfranklin1776]

14. Excellent point.

And, thus, should fall within the category of “rights . . .retained by the people” and not subject to denial or disparagement as per the Ninth Amendment. So Yah SCALITO and Thomas and their fellow injustices like “originalism” so long as it’s their own cherry picked, distorted version of history. However, the broader point is also valid, 21st century laws should not be irrevocably shackled by 18th century laws and render We The People incapable of addressing modern problems and situations the founders could not have envisioned. Indeed, THAT feudalistic view is contrary to the founders’ intent that the constitution not be the last word forever and for all time on all issues.

[mnhtnbb]

27. Alito doesn't know history, doesn't know science,

doesn't know shit. All he knows is what he wants to know, whether it's factual or not, that will support his particular religious belief system.

Abortion was commonly accepted from the time of the Pilgrims in the Colonies through about the mid to late1800's. Pregnant women used primarily abortifacients, not surgical procedures. It was allowed up until " quickening" when a woman could feel movement of the fetus.

Acceptance of abortion began to decline when white male physicians started to take over care of pregnant women from midwives and were less than sympathetic to women wanting to control the size of their families, or avoid the significant risks associated with childbirth.

It has always been about white male control of women in this country.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

https://teachingsocialstudies.org/2022/02/11/midwifery-and-abortion-in-the-modern-curriculum/

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html

[dalton99a]

7. We certainly have a perverse, dysfunctional, fucked-up system of democracy

- a laughingstock among developed nations

[calimary]

8. Democracy? Dunno anymore.

It’s shaping up as a new century shooting gallery.

[Haggis 4 Breakfast]

39. Every military officer is required at some point to read "The Art of War"

It's applications go far beyond warfare. Strategic thinking is not confined to the battlefield.

Sun Tsu was simply brilliant.

[MarcA]

30. The US was not designed as a Democracy.

And the cumbersome anti-democratic means of amending the Constitution is evidence of that.

[OldBaldy1701E]

9. Yeah, but we don't want to. Obviously.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

[Texin]

17. Well, you know what? A lot of the so-called Founding Fathers were members of The Hellfire Club.

Look it up sometime. Benjamin Franklin was a member and so were his bastard son and grandson. Debauchery and arranged abortions were de rigueur.

[edhopper]

18. Franklin a libertine

say it isn't so!

Yeah we all know what a randy bastard he was. And let's not mention Sally Hemmings, shall we.

[kskiska]

19. Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700

Benjamin Franklin is revered in history for his fixation on inventing practical ways to make everyday life easier. He was a prolific inventor and author, and spent his life tinkering and writing to share his knowledge with the masses.

One of the more surprising areas Franklin wanted to demystify for the average American? At-home abortions.

Molly Farrell is an associate professor of English at the Ohio State University and studies early American literature. She authored a recent Slate article that suggests Franklin's role in facilitating at-home abortions all started with a popular British math textbook.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak

[Texin]

20. He probably improved on the technique. He would have needed to. He had a lot of practice.

[malthaussen]

28. Around 40 years ago, when Philadelphia was digging up some land near the river for construction...

... they turned up a mass burial ground full of infant remains, suggesting that infanticide was often the resort of people who couldn't support more children. So Mr Franklin might well have been aware of the problem and decided to address it.

-- Mal

[Magoo48]

22. Yes, yes, and yes.

[AverageOldGuy]

32. It's about the "Founding Fathers" . . .

17 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned a total of about 1,400 slaves. Of the first 12 U.S. presidents, eight were slave owners. Clearly, they would not have approved of the 13th Amendment. Should we repeal the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery? If so, we need to do it soon -- August-September is cotton-picking time in the Mississippi Delta.

And while we are at it, let's dump the 15th and 19th Amendments and return the right to vote to where it was originally -- with white men who owned property!!


Can I get an AMEN!?!?!?!?

[Loge23]

34. Amen!

That said, I don't care about what superstition one believes in either!

[lees1975]

40. I think it is important to know what the Founding Fathers did and why...

but also take note of the fact that many of them were intelligent and educated enough to understand that the constitution they were writing would easily become dated and fixed, and they provided for the means to amend it as necessary, and in accordance with what they saw as the political wisdom of their day.

I've studied and taught American history, enough to have explored the details and read multiple authors from multiple perspectives. They not only recognized the potential for changes in society, but they experienced it and were profoundly affected by it. They were perceptive enough to take the time to let things develop, once independence was secured, to let community leaders come to the realization that their existence could still easily be threatened by the British, French and Spanish powers which still had a presence on the same continent. They were fortunate that the fourteen years between independence and the adoption of the constitution did not result in one or two, or more, states being picked off by foreign invasion.

Deference to the "founding fathers" by originalists is a backward move that runs contrary to the whole idea of an amendable constitution. Even making that kind of change is next to impossible, and would be completely so in our current political atmosphere. They saw Christianity as a state-controlled institution, not a personal religious belief and there is no ideological reference to democracy as an ideal of a so-called "Christian nation." Democracy doesn't come from Christian influence or the Bible, it was the result of the influence of the Enlightenment. The Christian church of their day was elder-ruled, and elders were chosen by the consensus of a small group of the more active and committed male members of a church.

So, if the founding fathers were alive today...

They would approve of the popular election of the President and the abolishment of the antiquated, outdated, provincial and backward electoral college, which was the result of a long-gone fear of monarchy.

They would, in most cases, be completely favorable toward racial equality and the participation of all citizens, regardless of their race or ethnicity, in the government.

They would be horrified with the political divisiveness that has developed, the non-negotiating, "winner take all", steal advantage if you can't win it Limbaughism that has created political gridlock.

They would be horrified at the way the Supreme Court has been completely politicized.