5 Reasons Why Modern Wing-Nuts Would've Hated The Founding Fathers

[norwegen]

Most assaults on the constitution are federal lawsuits brought by conservatives to set back the clock in civil rights. They have never forgiven any forward progress in this area.

Define "forward progress". Do you think banning soda pop and high capacity magazines is in keeping with the Constitution?

The founders created a mechanism for us to amend the constitution and test the constitutionality of new laws. Whether anything is constitutional is up to us and not to the opinions of people 230 years ago. Trying to imagine how the founders would have felt about current situations is a meaningless exercise. They had the wisdom to create a flexible document that could change with the times, it is supposed to make us free, not lock us in a cage constructed long ago by people who could not even imagine our world.

From the various doctrines and philosophic assumptions of the intellectual classes associated with social Darwinism emerged the idea of a flexible constitution.

The framers did not create a "living" instrument. No such thing existed before Charles Darwin.

 

[occupied]

Most assaults on the constitution are federal lawsuits brought by conservatives to set back the clock in civil rights. They have never forgiven any forward progress in this area.

Define "forward progress". Do you think banning soda pop and high capacity magazines is in keeping with the Constitution?

The founders created a mechanism for us to amend the constitution and test the constitutionality of new laws. Whether anything is constitutional is up to us and not to the opinions of people 230 years ago. Trying to imagine how the founders would have felt about current situations is a meaningless exercise. They had the wisdom to create a flexible document that could change with the times, it is supposed to make us free, not lock us in a cage constructed long ago by people who could not even imagine our world.

From the various doctrines and philosophic assumptions of the intellectual classes associated with social Darwinism emerged the idea of a flexible constitution.

The framers did not create a "living" instrument. No such thing existed before Charles Darwin.

The constitution has an amendment process and did not attempt to state the law of the land, it is but a bare skeleton that we clothe in the flesh of law. Treating it like the last word on our interpretation of freedom is stupid. It was left to us to perfect our freedoms.

 

[norwegen]

Most assaults on the constitution are federal lawsuits brought by conservatives to set back the clock in civil rights. They have never forgiven any forward progress in this area.

Define "forward progress". Do you think banning soda pop and high capacity magazines is in keeping with the Constitution?

The founders created a mechanism for us to amend the constitution and test the constitutionality of new laws. Whether anything is constitutional is up to us and not to the opinions of people 230 years ago. Trying to imagine how the founders would have felt about current situations is a meaningless exercise. They had the wisdom to create a flexible document that could change with the times, it is supposed to make us free, not lock us in a cage constructed long ago by people who could not even imagine our world.

From the various doctrines and philosophic assumptions of the intellectual classes associated with social Darwinism emerged the idea of a flexible constitution.

The framers did not create a "living" instrument. No such thing existed before Charles Darwin.

The constitution has an amendment process and did not attempt to state the law of the land, it is but a bare skeleton that we clothe in the flesh of law. Treating it like the last word on our interpretation of freedom is stupid. It was left to us to perfect our freedoms.

The Constitution doesn't state the law of the land? Have you not read it? It is the law of the land, as are the laws pursuant thereof.

And the amendment process was not meant to be a toy, as you progressives have made it. It was not intended to restrict the people (as with Amendment 18).

You ignorant, agenda-driven reactionaries started trashing our Constitution a century ago. Now you twist yourselves up trying to explain the thing.

 

[PredFan]

Oh and also, the wingnut that wrote it totally failed in his original purpose of showing how we would hate the founding fathers.

 

[regent]

The framers were somewhat restricted in what they might put into their new document.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'There's no doubt in my mind modern US liberals are very authoritarian. "Nanny Staters" is a correct label for them.'

In your mind, perhaps – but not as a matter of fact.

Liberals don’t seek to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law, conservatives do.

Liberals don’t seek to deny gay Americans their right to marry, conservatives do.

Liberals don’t legislate ‘bathroom laws’ in an effort to disadvantage those transgender, conservatives do.

Liberals don’t enact un-Constitutional voter ‘ID’ laws, conservatives do.

Liberals don’t advocate drug testing those applying for public assistance, conservatives do.

With regard to these and many other issues, conservatives work to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When conservatives argue that “general welfare” does not cover left-wing economic policies, they often cite James Madison (from The Federalist No. 41), who argued that it should be construed as narrowly as possible, insisting that “it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.” Less than four years later, however, Alexander Hamilton argued that the term “general welfare” simply referred to Congress’s power to impose taxes for any program that would serve the broader public interest, pointing out (in his Report on Manufactures) that “it is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.”

While legal and historical scholars disagree to this day as to whether Madison or Hamilton was correct, there is no question that they shared the same basic difference of opinion on economic questions as many Americans today. That said, there is one point on which they would not have disagreed.

And there is no doubt that the Hamiltonian paradigm as expressed in post-Lochner Commerce Clause jurisprudence today is indeed consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation, with the correct understanding that the Framers themselves were in constant disagreement about this and other aspects of economic policy.

 

[Divine Wind]

The constitution has an amendment process and did not attempt to state the law of the land, it is but a bare skeleton that we clothe in the flesh of law. Treating it like the last word on our interpretation of freedom is stupid. It was left to us to perfect our freedoms.

True, except it wasn't intended to strip people of rights, neither unalienable, enumerated or unenumerated. Only an authoritarian twit thinks it does.

 

[occupied]

The constitution has an amendment process and did not attempt to state the law of the land, it is but a bare skeleton that we clothe in the flesh of law. Treating it like the last word on our interpretation of freedom is stupid. It was left to us to perfect our freedoms.

True, except it wasn't intended to strip people of rights, neither unalienable, enumerated or unenumerated. Only an authoritarian twit thinks it does.

What rights do you think you have been stripped of? Stand up and tell the class your story of self pity and victimhood at the hands of a government bent on your enslavement.

 

[Divine Wind]

The framers were somewhat restricted in what they might put into their new document.

For good reason; the Founders distrusted government and saw it as a necessary evil. The Constitution is a limitation on government, not citizens. Modern Liberals interpret that Constitution to be a limitation on citizen rights with government being given free reign to do as it pleases.

 

[Divine Wind]

What rights do you think you have been stripped of? Stand up and tell the class your story of self pity and victimhood at the hands of a government bent on your enslavement.

Every law that is victimless and serves no purpose other than to limit citizen rights.

Government is given limited powers to resolve situations where one citizen's rights conflict with another. Oliver Wendell Holmes' "right to swing my fist" idea. What we have are people who think 36 oz sodas are bad for you and ban them or put high "sin taxes" on things which aren't good for you such as cigarettes and liquor.

It's one thing for you to ban someone firing a gun in the air around people, but to ban high capacity magazines because a few, and I do mean a few, people use them for bad purposes? That's wrong. When you limits the rights of over 300 MILLION honest citizens just because a handful of them are mentally ill and go nutty, that's modern liberal assholes stripping Americans of their unalienable and unenumerated rights.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Progressive ideas are mainstream...just before their time.

And 20 to 50 years before the country they were tried in collapsed.

 

[occupied]

What rights do you think you have been stripped of? Stand up and tell the class your story of self pity and victimhood at the hands of a government bent on your enslavement.

Every law that is victimless and serves no purpose other than to limit citizen rights.

Government is given limited powers to resolve situations where one citizen's rights conflict with another. Oliver Wendell Holmes' "right to swing my fist" idea. What we have are people who think 36 oz sodas are bad for you and ban them or put high "sin taxes" on things which aren't good for you such as cigarettes and liquor.

It's one thing for you to ban someone firing a gun in the air around people, but to ban high capacity magazines because a few, and I do mean a few, people use them for bad purposes? That's wrong. When you limits the rights of over 300 MILLION honest citizens just because a handful of them are mentally ill and go nutty, that's modern liberal assholes stripping Americans of their unalienable and unenumerated rights.

I do not personally believe in the usefulness of most gun laws so I am not going to waste time defending them but if that's all you have for a tale of personal misery brought on a loss of your rights then you sound pretty weak. You can still go down and buy as much guns and ammo as your budget will support so your complaints about the bad old liberals taking your precious guns is stupid.

 

[Divine Wind]

I do not personally believe in the usefulness of most gun laws so I am not going to waste time defending them but if that's all you have for a tale of personal misery brought on a loss of your rights then you sound pretty weak. You can still go down and buy as much guns and ammo as your budget will support so your complaints about the bad old liberals taking your precious guns is stupid.

In your opinion. You disregard the failures of actions by the Left are examples of no rights have been harmed. Do you seriously want to claim Hillary, when she is elected, will not seek to impose as much gun control as she can? If the Democrats end up controlling Congress with a Democrat in the WH, are you saying we won't see a massive anti-gun bill passed?

Sorry, kid, but you can bullshit all you want, but I've seen the likes of you and Hillary. I don't trust either of you to be honest nor protective of American rights.

 

[OKTexas]

I found this article while looking around the Internet researching the Founding Fathers. Fair warning; it leans Left. However, it has several very interesting viewpoints of which I agree. In general, while it does lean left (just like the Founders!) it's mostly anti-authoritarian. There's no doubt in my mind modern US liberals are very authoritarian. "Nanny Staters" is a correct label for them. Modern conservatives are a mix; they are authoritarian on some issues, but individualist and anti-federalist on others. Of the two sides, I lean right, but am not partisan right because they can be as authoritarian as LWers on different issues.

That said, the article is factually correct and an interesting read:
5 Reasons Why Modern Wing-Nuts Would've Hated The Founding Fathers
If you’re a Democrat (or, for that matter, a progressive of any stripe) the chances are you’ve heard conservatives evoke the founding fathers when dismissing your beliefs on economic issues. The term “socialist” has become such a toxic epithet in our political culture that the two chief candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have spent considerable time confronting the term – with Hillary Clinton correctly pointing out that it doesn’t apply to her center-left views, even as Bernie Sanders valiantly strives to remove its stigma by self-identifying as a “democratic socialist.”

In light of all this, one might be forgiven for assuming that America’s founders were unilaterally right-wing in their economic ideology. After all, if this wasn’t the case, liberals could easily debunk attempts to delegitimize them by simply citing the incontrovertible facts of American history......

The author of the article got a few things wrong, first the taxing clause in Article 1 Section 8 said the government could raise revenue to provide for the common defense and general welfare. However common defense and general welfare are NOT broad general powers as stated by SCOTUS because those powers are limited by the rest of the sentence. Yep the whole section is ONE sentence punctuated by commas and semicolons, there is no period until the end of the sentence. Second, Jefferson had the constitutional authority to negotiate a treaty with France for the Louisiana purchase. Congress ratified and funded it, there was nothing unconstitutional about it. And last but not least, Lincoln was a tyrant and war criminal who's presidency and war crimes were white washed by historians.

 

[Seawytch]

I do not personally believe in the usefulness of most gun laws so I am not going to waste time defending them but if that's all you have for a tale of personal misery brought on a loss of your rights then you sound pretty weak. You can still go down and buy as much guns and ammo as your budget will support so your complaints about the bad old liberals taking your precious guns is stupid.

In your opinion. You disregard the failures of actions by the Left are examples of no rights have been harmed. Do you seriously want to claim Hillary, when she is elected, will not seek to impose as much gun control as she can? If the Democrats end up controlling Congress with a Democrat in the WH, are you saying we won't see a massive anti-gun bill passed?

Sorry, kid, but you can bullshit all you want, but I've seen the likes of you and Hillary. I don't trust either of you to be honest nor protective of American rights.

If she manages to get us the kind of "gun control" legislation done that Ronald Reagan supported, that'd be fine.

 

[Conservative65]

Progressive ideas are mainstream...just before their time.

The progressive's assault on the Constitution is nothing new or surprising.

 

[Divine Wind]

If she manages to get us the kind of "gun control" legislation done that Ronald Reagan supported, that'd be fine.

Gov. Reagan or President Reagan?

Either way, I disagree on the further attack on the rights of innocent citizens. Fix the problem by going after criminals and the mentally ill, not by punishing millions of innocent, lawful Americans like a Nanny Stater.

 

[Al Azar]

Gov. Reagan or President Reagan?

Either way, I disagree on the further attack on the rights of innocent citizens. Fix the problem by going after criminals and the mentally ill, not by punishing millions of innocent, lawful Americans like a Nanny Stater.

Nobody's being punished, anymore than drivers are punished by the requirement for licensing and auto owners punished by requirements for registration.

It's simple public safety. You're not required to make a full stop at stop signs because the government hates you.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nobody's being punished, anymore than drivers are punished by the requirement for licensing and auto owners punished by requirements for registration.

It's simple public safety. You're not required to make a full stop at stop signs because the government hates you.

Sorry dude, but in America the right to bear arms is an enumerated right, driving is not. I know in Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations rights are limited to men. There is similar cultural, if not legal, system in many South and Central American countries. In the US, all citizens have equal rights. If they don't, then it's a legitimate point of contention.