The Original Intent Of The Founders

[Ladeeda]

So, which previous amendments do those contradict?

They contradict the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS, IE women being left in the kitchen, etc.

Your turn, unless you want to try and change the subject again to avoid backing up your arguments.

[ditchdj]

The "Tea Party" is a fraud.

If they're so behind the Constitution, then why are they so quiet and silent on the unconstitutional things our government's been doing. Unwarranted searches on airline and bus passengers, the Patroit Act, wiretapping, and so on. They only came on the scene after Obama was elected president, and they were orchestrated by Dick Armey, a Republican.

And ANY group that puts someone like Sarah Palin on a pedestal, someone that QUIT her job as governor of Alaska and violated her oath to the people there to carry out her term there so she could go make some more money somewhere else, just killed any other credibility they could have had.

[Hyena Dandy]

The Tea Party may claim to revere the founding fathers, but I don't think they're lying. I think they just revere their idea of the founding fathers. The tea party would not coach people to say that the founding fathers are irrelevant. They would teach people to say the founding fathers are relevant, and they said X. Whether or not they said that, or whether or not they were actually talking about that, and not something else, is usually irrelevant.

Surely, however, its possible to take quotes from the past and guess exactly what someone would want.

And I'm gonna take Smiley's challenge. Smiley, you think that we should improve the postal service with...


Uh...

Aww...

This is harder than I thought.

I'll just project my views by taking some words out of context

I was referring specifically to premeditated cold blooded murder.

Clearly, Smiley thinks that the post office is a wasteful institution, and we should destroy it.



Hey, this Tea Party thing is easy!

[FArchivist]

There isn't that much "guesswork" to what the founding fathers had intended. All it takes is to read what they had written in addition to the Constitution. The only "confusion" is just some people who do not agree with what was written and using the excuse of ignorance of what was said in order to further their own agenda.

The query this brings up: Read WHICH person's writings in addition to the U.S. Constitution. There are approximately 4 separate identifiable intentions of what various items in the Constitution meant, not to mention the innumerable quibbles about minor items.

So of the four Founding Fathers, which interpretation of the Constitution do you prefer? Federalist or Anti-Federalist? If Federalist, do you prefer Hamltion's or Washington's interpretation? If Anti-Federalist, do you prefer Jefferson or Madison? All are distinct and very different from each other.

Everyone is allowed their own opinion.

Absolutely.

The way the government runs today is bassackwards from what the country was founded on, pure and simple.

Actually, it is very much in line with Hamiltonian Federalism.

If we were to have government run according to the popular viewpoint of Thomas Jefferson, we'd have the Confederate States of America, as that was his ideal vision of what the nation should be.

Sounds to me like the Ninth Amendment would fit in right here......

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

----In other words, our rights aren't limited to soley the Constitution. We can create laws and regulations that secure other rights for the people on our own.

Except that if you go by strict constructionism and originalism, i.e. intent of the Founding Fathers, there is NO such thing as implied rights. It does not say "right of privacy" anywhere in the USC; that had to be decided by the Supreme Court. Equality of gender is nowhere mentioned in the USC; therefore it does not exist.

Indeed, because of originalist thinking that implied rights did not exist, we had to create the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. Even those were not sufficient; under originalist thinking Jim Crow laws are perfectly legitimate and within the intent of the Founders. It required the understanding of the "Living Constitution" and the acceptance of implied rights to allow things like civil rights reform, Miranda warnings, and equal pay regardless of gender to become a reality.

And, again, what matters is the Constitution.

This is functionally incorrect. What matters is the United States Constitution, the Amendments thereof, and the interpretations of the Supreme Court as to what is and is not constitutional.

Isn't freedom of speech part of the Constitution?

Only freedom of speech as in not being impinged by federal, state, and local government.
Private entities not related to government can censor and control your speech all they like.

[guywithashovel]

The issue I've had with this kind of thinking is that we have a segment of the population (that seems to have gotten more and more vocal in the last few years) that seems to want to point out what the founding fathers thought of a certain issue and act as if that should end all debate on the matter.

They did get the country started and put the Constitution together. However, they also created a way to amend the Constitution. To me, that shows that they saw that their ideas might need modified as time progressed.

[smileyeagle1021]

Clearly, Smiley thinks that the post office is a wasteful institution, and we should destroy it.

Yes, we shall destroy it as I singlehandedly keep it in business (I go through way more stamps and shipping than I care to admit... thank you half.com )