2 ms·
Do they though? The conservative rhetoric around "This is what the founders said, and is therefore correct" is pure faith. Personally speaking, I couldn't give
by xxpor 6y ago
Do they though?
The conservative rhetoric around "This is what the founders said, and is therefore correct" is pure faith. Personally speaking, I couldn't give less of a crap what they thought. My opinion is the general concept is sound, but the founders were men from the 1700s who didn't have modern values or the benefit of hindsight. So much of the constitution was just a compromise between the people who happened to be there. I don't think we need to scrap the whole thing, but the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't.
If someone wants to make a faith based argument that democracy itself is a better idea than a monarchy or a dictatorship, that's fine since that's really a pure philosophical position, but the constitution is real document that affects real things and was written by men. It can and should be revised.
- zepto 6y ago> the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't. Sure but this is a straw man. The constitution provides mechanisms for it to be changed. It has been in effect for 231 years and amended 27 times. In general with laws, I think intent matters a lot. If the law is bad, we should change it to reflect that rather than create a twisted interpretation to suit whoever is in power.