General Discussion

LWolf

(46,179 posts)

60. I was just making sure that your FF

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:37 PM

Jun 2013

meant "founding fathers;" I wasn't sure because of the grammar issue.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers knew what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. Not that they all agreed, by any means. Not that it can't be re-interpreted to fit the modern world, either. For example, in the modern world we recognize rights for a broader population than landed white men.

Any re-interpretation of the Constitution to make it more authoritarian, to provide less liberty, though, is, in my opinion, blasphemy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yoohoo! Thomas Jefferson left a message: [View all] Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 OP

Haters gotta hate. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #1

"The people" support the NSA surveillance michigandem58 Jun 2013 #48

Says who? East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #49

But John Adams sought to establish "a government of laws and not of men." baldguy Jun 2013 #2

I haven't called anyone a fascist or a dictator. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #3

And nobody here is trying to argue with Thomas Jefferson, either. baldguy Jun 2013 #4

I will just say that that's your opinion. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #6

When Adams promoted the idea of a nation of laws he iemitsu Jun 2013 #26

Well said. cui bono Jun 2013 #80

True, as it is true that the Supremes, themselves, are iemitsu Jun 2013 #87

ISTM both Adams and Jefferson were addressing the same sort of problem... HereSince1628 Jun 2013 #5

So, when one man decides by himself that he's not going to follow a properly enacted law? baldguy Jun 2013 #11

Red herring Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #12

"This thread and that quote is not about Snowden specifically." baldguy Jun 2013 #16

If I wanted it to be about Snowden, Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #19

I believe Adam's and Jefferson's comments were about leaders and governance HereSince1628 Jun 2013 #15

So, individuals have no responsability to follow their leaders? baldguy Jun 2013 #22

So, individuals have no responsability (responsibility) to follow their leaders? malokvale77 Jun 2013 #61

Absurd juvenile Objectivist fantasy is not a Democratic Party value. baldguy Jun 2013 #71

Juvenile? malokvale77 Jun 2013 #72

Typical. You advocate for a libertarian utopia and have no clue what Objectivism means. baldguy Jun 2013 #74

I never said "every man for himself" malokvale77 Jun 2013 #75

That doesn't mean we just follow the leaders. This is supposed to be a representative cui bono Jun 2013 #81

OP intended us to be forced to disagree with Jefferson treestar Jun 2013 #65

A government of laws endowed with power granted by the people and serving at their pleasure. Nimajneb Nilknarf Jun 2013 #8

Yeah, it'd be nice to have that too. JoeyT Jun 2013 #24

So did Jefferson. What's your point? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #27

There DUers who love to criticize Democratic leaders who follow the law honestly & sincerely. baldguy Jun 2013 #29

If leaders are not abiding by the Constitution of the US which they swore to defend and protect sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #34

The Courts, Congress, and ultimately the People decide what is and is not Constitutional. baldguy Jun 2013 #36

Ultimately the people! The people are responsible for the courts and Congress. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #38

So, where does it end? Should all govt secrets at every level be exposed to the world? baldguy Jun 2013 #43

Nicely put treestar Jun 2013 #66

Are you talking about the NSA spying when you say cui bono Jun 2013 #82

Could you explain that please? sibelian Jun 2013 #84

Which of the following do you think Adams would be in favor of: BlueStreak Jun 2013 #58

To be legitimate... malokvale77 Jun 2013 #62

Adams was practical treestar Jun 2013 #68

And so the Founders would never want to see this unconstitutional spying then. n/t cui bono Jun 2013 #83

I don't think they'd agree with you on this treestar Jun 2013 #85

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, sounds like you and they agree with me then? cui bono Jun 2013 #86

that can be interpreted in two ways, ya know. the government has already broken the HiPointDem Jun 2013 #76

re: "Argue with him and cast aspersions on his character." thesquanderer Jun 2013 #7

Jefferson is dead, so arguing with him would be tough Progressive dog Jun 2013 #9

Do you disagree with the FFs that a government should be 'by the people, of the people and for the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #28

Wow, the Founding Fathers agree with you too Progressive dog Jun 2013 #39

IMO, he didn't take it quite far enough. Every government degenerates Zorra Jun 2013 #10

Yep. Don't trust the government for anything. Roads, services, whatever. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #13

That was not what was said. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #20

It most certainly does not. How can you even infer that? Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #21

Ok Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #23

"And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.", suggests iemitsu Jun 2013 #45

This isn't Six Degrees of Separation. The context of Jefferson's comments was education, not secrecy Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #46

Except that education and secrecy are the polar opposites, iemitsu Jun 2013 #47

The people built those roads, the people provide the services. Our system of government sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #30

A lot of people want the government to protect them from unknown, sneaky, evil things. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #40

Actually they are leaving surveillance to corporations. Union Scribe Jun 2013 #69

Jefferson loved asparagus! hootinholler Jun 2013 #14

When People Fear The Government, Tyranny Prevails - When Government Fears The People, Liberty Prevails cantbeserious Jun 2013 #17

the founding fathers disagreed with each other like people now alc Jun 2013 #18

Yet the all came together in the end and wrote the Constitution which every elected official sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #31

A DUer today LWolf Jun 2013 #25

Well, the President said in his statement after the leaks, that we 'can't have 100% security without sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #32

WUT? magellan Jun 2013 #35

Yes, I thought that was a pretty shocking statement to be made by Democratic president. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #37

Yes. LWolf Jun 2013 #51

I'm too old to be shocked anymore... malokvale77 Jun 2013 #67

We're never gonna have 100% security. winter is coming Jun 2013 #54

That's what we do when we have a government treestar Jun 2013 #70

Laws are intended to protect people. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #73

And Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, reversing Ben Progressive dog Jun 2013 #44

FF. nt LWolf Jun 2013 #52

Well for FF #1, a man named Thomas Jefferson Progressive dog Jun 2013 #56

I was just making sure that your FF LWolf Jun 2013 #60

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #33

He said some cool things about religion too Progressive dog Jun 2013 #41

oh, I like that one. liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #53

Well clearly Jefferson was a pole-dancer dating racist. n/t DirkGently Jun 2013 #42

Oh Jefferson, Schmefferson! Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #50

Gotta admit... malokvale77 Jun 2013 #63

James Madison called and wants us to return his Bill of Rights if we aren't going to use it. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #55

good one. liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #57

"Remember, today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday." - V for Vendetta BOG PERSON Jun 2013 #59

He meant having a representative body treestar Jun 2013 #64

cast aspersions on his character.... side note but... lunasun Jun 2013 #77

There are Hissyspit Jun 2013 #78

1. Thomas Jefferson opposed the Constitution's passage Recursion Jun 2013 #79