3 ms·

[citation needed]

wizzwizz4 5y ago
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789 https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whethe... > The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion.
- benglish11 5y ago
  Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on this issue doesn’t mean “The US was founded on this principle”. If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution. If that were true, we wouldn't have had the first block of amendments. There's plenty of stuff that didn't make it into the original constitution because the founders thought it was obvious.
  - musingsole 5y ago
    There's a long standing philosophy that pretty much any and all ideas in the founder's heads are viable as founding principles. Otherwise what good is mining their journals and letters and their acquaintances journals and letters in a continuous attempt to understand what they thought was critical for a society to function. This largely ignores the rest of society and what they were thinking. From the first perspective, these are all ideas that got smuggled in.
    - kevinmchugh 5y ago
      It also ignores the significant disagreements the founders had amongst themselves.
- comicjk 5y ago
  To some extent this famous quote is just sour grapes: Jefferson wasn't much involved in the drafting or passing of the US Constitution, so naturally he was not as attached to it as the other founders. Note that this was a letter written from France.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  This one of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK: No Parliament can bind a future parliament. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Didn't the UK establish a Supreme Court in 2009 with the power to bind Parliament?
    - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
      I don't believe that UK's Supreme Court can override direct actions by Parliament[1]. They can override "secondary legislation", regulations created by ministers using authority that Parliament gave them, but in that capacity they are ensuring that ministers follow the laws that Parliament created, not acting to reign in Parliament. They can also declare that legislation violates human rights, but that declaration is non-binding. They are effectively just asking Parliament to go back and fix the law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
- tzs 5y ago
  > I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion. You need more than one because the founding of the US was a group effort. Not all ideas pitched by any given founder made it in, and even when one did many of those who voted to include it had a different understanding of what it meant.

[citation needed]

https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789 https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whethe... > The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion.

benglish11 5y ago
Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on this issue doesn’t mean “The US was founded on this principle”. If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution. If that were true, we wouldn't have had the first block of amendments. There's plenty of stuff that didn't make it into the original constitution because the founders thought it was obvious.
- musingsole 5y ago
  There's a long standing philosophy that pretty much any and all ideas in the founder's heads are viable as founding principles. Otherwise what good is mining their journals and letters and their acquaintances journals and letters in a continuous attempt to understand what they thought was critical for a society to function. This largely ignores the rest of society and what they were thinking. From the first perspective, these are all ideas that got smuggled in.
  - kevinmchugh 5y ago
    It also ignores the significant disagreements the founders had amongst themselves.
comicjk 5y ago
To some extent this famous quote is just sour grapes: Jefferson wasn't much involved in the drafting or passing of the US Constitution, so naturally he was not as attached to it as the other founders. Note that this was a letter written from France.
kwhitefoot 5y ago
This one of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK: No Parliament can bind a future parliament. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Didn't the UK establish a Supreme Court in 2009 with the power to bind Parliament?
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    I don't believe that UK's Supreme Court can override direct actions by Parliament[1]. They can override "secondary legislation", regulations created by ministers using authority that Parliament gave them, but in that capacity they are ensuring that ministers follow the laws that Parliament created, not acting to reign in Parliament. They can also declare that legislation violates human rights, but that declaration is non-binding. They are effectively just asking Parliament to go back and fix the law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
tzs 5y ago
> I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion. You need more than one because the founding of the US was a group effort. Not all ideas pitched by any given founder made it in, and even when one did many of those who voted to include it had a different understanding of what it meant.