"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Why Don't They Post This Jefferson Quote?
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
tekkychick
New member
Great quote! Thanks for posting!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's why they wrote in the amendment process, as well as methods to call a constitutional convention, duh.
Steelplate
New member
That's also why we have a three branch government. A Congress to write bills, a SCOTUS to determine Constitutionality, and an Executive Branch to sign it into Law.
An Amendment/Constitutional Convention is not required every time you don't like the smell of someone's farts.
Now that statement I like. But everyone's farts smell and none admit it. We need an agreement that some smell lingers with everyone's statements, so others are allowed the distance of the smell of their own farts. We must start respectful argument. I know some answers, but not all. Perhaps you know a few. Could we find the common ground, please.
This country is in such trouble. We have the highest disagreement quotient since Reconstruction. The only period with less general agreement went from 1852-1865. We might be wise to avoid a redoing of that period. As honorable people, interested in the welfare of our nation on the anniversary of its founding, let us take a new oath in the name of civility and the common good, that we will seek first for common ground.
But I thought you guys favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Or even the Bill of Rights?
Could Jefferson's words apply even to the Second Amendment?
Ouch. That hurt you, didn't it?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I dunno, did it?
As a conservative I do favor a strict, plain language interpretation of the Constitution. It's quite obvious, and this is backed up by the writings of the Founders, that the federal government is constitutionally severely limited in power. Now if the People find a need to increase or decrease that power, then they should go forward with the amendment process. Unfortunately that has not been the case and the power of the feds has increased without due process...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well my farts definately smell......but my wifes can literally peal the paint off the walls.
How many times do we need to explain this to you? Enlighten yourself. You might want to start with the rudimentary education. Something commensurate with your education level. May I recommend Schoolhouse Rock?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
The problem I have with that argument or more correctly the red flag it often raises is that far to often those who advance the argument of severly limiting the scope of federal powers all to often have a hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) agenda of preventing the expansion of the benefits of liberty to all or are rationalizing States having the authority to deny liberty too or even oppress segments of its population.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That, of course, is a bullshit argument. A limited federal government still has the power to enforce the bill of rights, etc.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
May I recommend the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, it's amendments, and the Federalist papers?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it's not a bullshit argument. It's an argument that has historically been used to oppress people and deny others the blessings of liberty. Slavery and Jim Crow laws are the most obvious examples. When the nation moved to abolish those constitutionally their defenders argued both that the Federal Government was going beyond its proscribed constitutional powers (while hypocritically opposing constitutional reforms) and defended States rights to continue those odd institutions.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
No one quotes it because Jefferson was not a Federalist, and therefore bad for America. Just look at the fact that his 1st Term was successful because of a few measures he took that were more in line with what the Federalists would have done. John Adam established peace with France before leaving office - does anyone believe he would have refused to purchase Louisianna from a greatful Napolean? Now, take a look at the abysmal failure of Jefferson's 2nd term, and you will notice that he had retreated into his DR shell.
Federalist Party = Good
Dem-Rep Party = Bad
P.S. The reference to the 2A was irrelevant, Howie, which is why everyone ignored it. Dumbass Southerner already stated he supported the amendment process, which is what it would require to seize guns from the people.
Federalist Party = Good
Dem-Rep Party = Bad
P.S. The reference to the 2A was irrelevant, Howie, which is why everyone ignored it. Dumbass Southerner already stated he supported the amendment process, which is what it would require to seize guns from the people.
Steelplate
New member
The Federalist papers hold absolutely ZERO bearing on much of anything. That's the problem with you folk you take ONE of our many founding fathers' OPINION.....and embrace it as a unfailing schematic of the Constitution. Hamilton was not on an Island onto himself....Not even close.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Well, the Constitution was written first, so it has bearing on them. They, however, were written about each concept and facet of the Constitution, so reading them is like reading a lenghthy dissertation about what it means. Hamilton did grow up on an island, away from the other Founders, so that is actually pretty close. 
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Honestly, I wish I could write a screenplay about the life of Hamilton and title it "American Dreamer." His life story (even to Adams' Wing Federalists and DRs who hated the man) was so wild and exciting, that it did impress everyone who knew him. Jefferson recognized that Hamilton was his, Adams, and Madison's intellectual equal, and a genius in economics that surpassed everyone else of the age (consider also the fact that Jefferson sucked at personal finance and was forever in or on the verge of bankruptcy).
His life story would really entertain and inspire modern audiences, and people would walk away admitting that it all seems too bizarre to be actual history.
His life story would really entertain and inspire modern audiences, and people would walk away admitting that it all seems too bizarre to be actual history.
Steelplate
New member
The bottom line, sir....is that our lives, our physical being and our technology and yes, our business acumen has evolved exponentially since the days of the founding fathers. To embrace the ideology of the late 1700's as the basis of our current, modern general knowledge is a huge step backward for our Country.
Our country is in "So Much Trouble"...simply because we refuse, either in part or in whole, to embrace or at least to work with a global economy.
Every other industrialized country uses....to one degree or another....Socialism, to allow the working people to live a tolerable life.....that means a living wage...according to that particular country's cost of living.....but it also goes beyond that....it also requires a health care system and a reasonable retirement system to allow people who have dedicated their lives to help make a certain "Class" of people incredibly wealthy just a bit more comfortable in their own golden years. This allows the everyman a certain ability to acquire and pass down PROPERTY....which is one of the inalienable rights found in our Constitution...to their offspring.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
We have embraced the global economy considerably. Have you noticed our appetite for outsourcing and importing foreign manufactures?