IcyPatriot

Opinion piece people ... let's get that out of the way first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/op...rnow.html?_r=1

I liked the conclusion the best:
The diversity of this forum should be encouraged ... just wanted to throw that in.

apple strudel

This was a good piece. I think one of the most problematic things is that if people keep hearing about what "the founding fathers meant" without really understanding that a lot of the claims are ludicrous then the damage is already done. Shame. Democracy needs at least a populace that tries to get it.

IcyPatriot

Democracy has become who has the most money and who gets the most hits on the internet. Democracy has become a call to action ... someone wants something and they get the message to the minions to spread the message.

Democracy was supposed to discussions and debate ... I like the romantic notion of a bunch of smelly people in a room arguing until the oil in the lanterns ran out ... we've gone backwards. The writer hits it spot on when he talks about :

"The truth is that the disputatious founders — who were revolutionaries, not choir boys — seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day."

Now when they don't agree they get labeled and get bad press. Republicans and democrats are not always supposed to agree ... that's the point. To exclude the extremes and find the common ground that benefits the many. We're more worried now about keeping the donations coming ... bottom line do not alienate the base.

apple strudel

Sadly this is true. Though the most money is more important than the most hits.

That's not bad, so far as romantic notions go. Though I'd go a little further and say that we haven't just gone backwards, we've gone all the way back to square one. But that's not really important in this conversation.


I find this point particularly salient with respect to the idea of strict contructionism. If the founding father meant for the constitution to be strictly constructed, they would not have been so at odds.

patsfan13

The basic premise remains that the Constitution was a document designed to limit the powers of the government in keeping with the premises set forth in the Declaration. That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

It is interesting that the political parties are having so much problem understanding and coming to grips with the Tea Parties. The TImes is publishing this opinion piece has come a long way from the dismissive tone taken towards the Tea Parties initially.

This is not a bad piece as it relates to the fact that the Founders were not a monolithic bloc.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

apple strudel

Or probably more precisely, considering where they were coming from (George III), to limit the powers of a malevolent government. I have a hard time buying into the idea of the founding father trying to limit the powers of a benevolent one. E.g., they were not battling monopolies or oligopolies in their time, so in the case where such institutions are among the more destructive institutions, the founding fathers would have little to no problem allowing the people recourse through said government seeing as how it would actually increase personal freedom.

patsfan13

They understand than ANY government run by men can and will become malevolent. THis is why government must be constrained as much as possible or else it will lead to tyranny.

In most governments The state gives rights to citizens. The genius of the Founders has been that the people gave government LIMITED POWERS.


The Declaration of Independence set the Tone by Stating that we have natural rights endowed by our Creator, this the State has no right to take away. That is fundamentally different than any other government I am aware of.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

apple strudel

So you are an anarchist?

Slippery slope.

Limited powers to grant rights? Sounds counter-intuitive to me.


So how is it that the party that waxes most philosophical about the founding fathers is the same party that is most loathe to grant rights? Doesn't add up (though of course I already know the answer).

Further, the less shield (in the form of government) between individuals and powerful institutions, the fewer realized rights there are. Without a truly democratic government, who do you propose to stand between these entities?

patsfan13

Not really Conservative Libertarian is how I would view myself.






Perhaps. The government has no right to give you anything. You already have the rights given to you by your creator.

How can someone "give" you that which you already have? Read the Declaration of Independence.




Rights aren't granted you have them already. Nothing to be granted, usually government takes rights away. IF government 'gives' you rights you are indebted to government, that isn't the premise that the country was founded on, it is the premise of marxist states, that the state comes before the individual, in America it is the opposite.



What 'powerful institutions' ?

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

apple strudel

Given that man invented God then that means that man grants man rights. Sounds right to me.

History shows us that rights are not static, and that they trend towards liberalism over time.