True or false

flaja said:
I’m saying there are, but that there was is the impression I get from people that harp on original intent.
Click to expand...

I'm not being comletely serious, but consider this. There have been wiser individuals, such as Socrates, Arelius, Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, etc., but has there ever been a wiser collection of such individuals in history? Certainly those in The Academy (Plato's school) and Lyceum (Aristotle's school) could be compared...
 
Most of the founding fathers were terrible, terrible people.

Except Franklin, Franklin ruled.
 
Threedee said:
I'm not being comletely serious, but consider this. There have been wiser individuals, such as Socrates, Arelius, Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, etc., but has there ever been a wiser collection of such individuals in history? Certainly those in The Academy (Plato's school) and Lyceum (Aristotle's school) could be compared...
Click to expand...

The only group I would find comparable to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention is the translators of the Authorized King James Bible- but then both groups may have some help form a common source- with one group obviously getting more help than the other.
 
WinterBorn said:
I see what you are trying to say with this, but I think you are missing something fundamental.

The Founding Fathers were trying to create something for the good of the people. The current (meaning the last few decades) group of politicians are trying to gain power and a legacy. They are far less interested in what is good for the people.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the struggle between the two major parties prevents any meaningful change because the other side will always fight whatever is put forward.
Click to expand...

^legendary^

so true
 
Threedee said:
I'm not being comletely serious, but consider this. There have been wiser individuals, such as Socrates, Arelius, Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, etc., but has there ever been a wiser collection of such individuals in history? Certainly those in The Academy (Plato's school) and Lyceum (Aristotle's school) could be compared...
Click to expand...

Aquinas, interesting, why Aquinas in this list?
 
When a T/F question is deliberately phrased in a ridiculous and biased manner, it is not worth answering.

You cannot get away from the fact that our government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution. The intent, whether it was written by "wise" men (when assholes and mindless mommy government drones define for themselves what is wise) or not is moot. Nor has any claim been made that the original document was perfect - especially since it has been amended 27 times. It is, in its present form, still the supreme law of the land. It's intent and purpose was and is to assure our government does not become a tyranny. If we demand our government abide by its limitations, then we will continue to be safe from tyranny. If we allow government to interpret and reinterpret for their own benefit the meaning and limitations set forth, then we are begging for trouble.

We have proven, through the writings and statements of Contsitutional Convention delegates what the intent of the Constitution is. We have proven several times that they in no way intended political process to have the authority to make changes without amending it. Sorry if you do not like it, but the facts are what they are. Starting threads with stupid assed biased questions won't change them.
 
Good Luck said:
When a T/F question is deliberately phrased in a ridiculous and biased manner, it is not worth answering.

You cannot get away from the fact that our government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I have never said otherwise. What I have said is that the original intent was for the document to be adaptable without formal amendment because it was designed in a way that required its meaning to be interpreted. The Constitution does not give definitions for things like commerce or religion or general welfare so it is only natural that the meaning of these terms and what the Constitution says about them become political and legal issues, i.e., subject to interpretation and debate.
 
my apologies for not coming back and looking at this thread or I would have responded earlier

flaja said:
Beside the point, but does this include the slaves that lived on Massa Jefferson's plantation?
Click to expand...
not at that time, but not for the reasons you may hint at. You must understand that 'slaves' were considered property, not people. That was a wrong that was eventually righted, but even that change doesn't remove the original intent of the constitution.


flaja said:
When I ask about original intent, I am talking about the purpose and powers intended for the federal government that was created by the Constitution. What did original intent intend the federal government to do and by extension not do?
Click to expand...

Original Intent of the constitution was designed to do a few things, first and foremost was to create the federal government. That government was given a very specific list of enumerated powers intended to protect the rights of a fee people. The commerce clause wasn't written so that the feds could 'promote' certain sciences over another, it was written so that no state, or states, could exert undue pressures over another via taxation.
 
flaja said:
I have never said otherwise. What I have said is that the original intent was for the document to be adaptable without formal amendment because it was designed in a way that required its meaning to be interpreted. The Constitution does not give definitions for things like commerce or religion or general welfare so it is only natural that the meaning of these terms and what the Constitution says about them become political and legal issues, i.e., subject to interpretation and debate.
Click to expand...
How can a government be bound by a document when they are free to interpret the document in any way they desire? It is not logical. If you enter into a contract with someone, are you going to claim you have the unilateral authority to reinterpret the terms of the contract as your personal circumstances change? Does a person who borrows money via a credit card get to change the CC contract because he loses his job? Open interpretation provides no practical limits. Since the purpose of the Constitution is to provide limits on the federal government it created, interpretation is not an acceptable means of change.

And the Constitution is not a dictionary. The words used had defined meanings at the time they were used. The word commerce was already defined, the word religion was defined, and the word welfare was defined (and did NOT mean what it's common usage is today - especially since they referred to GENERAL welfare, not personal welfare.) You want to argue the meaning of the words because you do not like the already defined meaning. That is not how things work.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Original Intent of the constitution was designed to do a few things, first and foremost was to create the federal government. ...
Click to expand...
I must take exception to this statement. There are many ways they could have formed a federal government. While it was their intent to form a federal government, they used the means of a Constitution to define and limit the government they were creating. They could have used an open charter. They chose not to.

Thus the "first and foremost" intent of the Constitution was to provide the defined limits of their new government, not to create it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top