8 ms·

Fixed sized house is super silly, but the 2 senators per state is far worse. DC not having proper representation is also appalling when that’s a founding princi

Fixed sized house is super silly, but the 2 senators per state is far worse. DC not having proper representation is also appalling when that’s a founding principle. The founding fathers didn’t want the masses to be given proper voting. There were 2 million land owners. 7-9 million non land owners. So founding fathers like John Adams did not want a real democracy. They wanted their power. Their 2 senator decision was done without info about the future and well, they aren’t amazing people anyway.

feet 4y ago
Right, I'm not sure we should really take into consideration the opinions of people who thought black people weren't actually people and didn't want women to vote. Those are some pretty bad founding principles.
- benf76 4y ago
  Those people are all dead.
  - feet 4y ago
    Yes and they wrote the founding documents. Do you think those opinions weren't included? They definitely were and we had to remove some of them. The concept of the Federalist society is primarily originalist, is it not? They attempt to ascertain exactly what the founders meant when drafting the original documents and interpret our current law based on that. I'm saying we probably shouldn't do that.
    - benf76 4y ago
      I think your concerns were addressed by amendments 12,13,14 re founding documents. So those opinions were excluded actually.
      - feet 4y ago
        You have repeated exactly what I said in my previous statement, yet their opinions can impact the way they structured things more subtly as well such as creating systems that enforce an imbalance of power towards white wealthy land owners.
        benf76 4y ago
        So because of their race and dead ancestors you would exclude them from the political process forever?
        pwinnski 4y ago
        I think the veneration of "the founding fathers" as a special group of wise people who set down words in the 18th century that will--that must--be held in reverence as unchangeable in perpetuity, well, I think that sounds a little bit crazy, even if you didn't know that that the special group of wise people in question didn't think much of well more than 50% of the current population. In fact, it sounds so ludicrous that one might think I'm exaggerating, but that is the actual position of originalism. The piece I left out, the piece that makes that crazy statement not seem so crazy to those who follow it, is God. Supporters of originalism would say they were "a special group of wise people ordained by God who set down words..." And yet they still didn't think much of women or Black people, lived in a world in which every farmer had munitions capable of holding off the world dominant power, ands had only seen what they had seen up to that point in history. I wouldn't want any one group of people today, in 2022, deciding the details of government for a group of people in 2257, and I don't think we should be bound quite so firmly by people from 235 years ago, either. We can--and have--corrected the most obviously egregious errors with some early amendments, but at the same time we've left most of the structural choices based on the same attitudes in place, or even made them worse with artificial limits.
        salawat 4y ago
        >I think the veneration of "the founding fathers" as a special group of wise people who set down words in the 18th century that will--that must--be held in reverence as unchangeable in perpetuity, well, I think that sounds a little bit crazy, even if you didn't know that that the special group of wise people in question didn't think much of well more than 50% of the current population. First, if you took a trip in a time machine back to then, I'm fairly sure you'd come off as a raving lunatic. Second, you're completely glazin over the fact that what we ended up with was a hard fought for and won compromise, which is half of why we venerate the people who actually locked themselves in and reached it in the first place, and also stick to some of their guiding wisdom on things. We haven't changed much but the most obvious deficits, because the action potential hasn't been able to be reached, which is exactly what you're looking for in your founding Constitution. You want law to come and go, and not to be all enshrined at the highest level. Whenever anyone suggests direct democracy at the Federal level, it's just a low key "I want cities/population centers/large States to dictate how small states do things."
mdorazio 4y ago
I think you're strongly misrepresenting motives here. The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them. The alternative was (and is) that farmers in Kansas who have much different concerns than urbanites in NYC get effectively zero representation at the federal level. Hence the senate was setup specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what you're now saying should exist.
- robcohen 4y ago
  That’s correct. Farmers in Kansas shouldn’t be dictating how this country is run. We don’t need to compromise with them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - benf76 4y ago
    If that’s your opinion why should they listen to you at all? They would secede along with the rest of the small states. You’re not understanding the principle of why everyone respects one another
    - robcohen 4y ago
      Let me flip the script here, how large does a minority group need to be before we need to do what they say? Conversely, when is a group small enough that we can disregard their desires when it conflicts with our own?
  - gedy 4y ago
    Gee, maybe we should just murder the Kulaks then? Sounds like you are advocating something other than a democracy.
    - robcohen 4y ago
      No one is suggesting murder here, nice strawman. I’m just saying I’m frankly tired of living in a country where a minority is in control of our political process.
mikelevins 4y ago
The founders didn’t all have the same opinion on these matters, not by a long shot. It’s true that they didn’t generally hold democracy in high esteem. They were too well aware of its past failures, and wary of repeating them. They in fact avoided using the word "democracy" for that reason. And yes, several of them were keen on increasing the power of the federal government. The US constitution was written in a context where the federal government had been hobbled because under the Articles of Confederation it didn’t have enough power to carry out its policies. In retrospect it looks to me like they might have been able to make the Articles work, maybe with some adjustments, but they didn’t think so, in the end, and of course they were closer to the situation than I am, so even I take my opinion with a grain of salt.

feet 4y ago

Right, I'm not sure we should really take into consideration the opinions of people who thought black people weren't actually people and didn't want women to vote. Those are some pretty bad founding principles.

benf76 4y ago
Those people are all dead.
- feet 4y ago
  Yes and they wrote the founding documents. Do you think those opinions weren't included? They definitely were and we had to remove some of them. The concept of the Federalist society is primarily originalist, is it not? They attempt to ascertain exactly what the founders meant when drafting the original documents and interpret our current law based on that. I'm saying we probably shouldn't do that.
  - benf76 4y ago
    I think your concerns were addressed by amendments 12,13,14 re founding documents. So those opinions were excluded actually.
    - feet 4y ago
      You have repeated exactly what I said in my previous statement, yet their opinions can impact the way they structured things more subtly as well such as creating systems that enforce an imbalance of power towards white wealthy land owners.
      - benf76 4y ago
        So because of their race and dead ancestors you would exclude them from the political process forever?
        pwinnski 4y ago
        I think the veneration of "the founding fathers" as a special group of wise people who set down words in the 18th century that will--that must--be held in reverence as unchangeable in perpetuity, well, I think that sounds a little bit crazy, even if you didn't know that that the special group of wise people in question didn't think much of well more than 50% of the current population. In fact, it sounds so ludicrous that one might think I'm exaggerating, but that is the actual position of originalism. The piece I left out, the piece that makes that crazy statement not seem so crazy to those who follow it, is God. Supporters of originalism would say they were "a special group of wise people ordained by God who set down words..." And yet they still didn't think much of women or Black people, lived in a world in which every farmer had munitions capable of holding off the world dominant power, ands had only seen what they had seen up to that point in history. I wouldn't want any one group of people today, in 2022, deciding the details of government for a group of people in 2257, and I don't think we should be bound quite so firmly by people from 235 years ago, either. We can--and have--corrected the most obviously egregious errors with some early amendments, but at the same time we've left most of the structural choices based on the same attitudes in place, or even made them worse with artificial limits.
        salawat 4y ago
        >I think the veneration of "the founding fathers" as a special group of wise people who set down words in the 18th century that will--that must--be held in reverence as unchangeable in perpetuity, well, I think that sounds a little bit crazy, even if you didn't know that that the special group of wise people in question didn't think much of well more than 50% of the current population. First, if you took a trip in a time machine back to then, I'm fairly sure you'd come off as a raving lunatic. Second, you're completely glazin over the fact that what we ended up with was a hard fought for and won compromise, which is half of why we venerate the people who actually locked themselves in and reached it in the first place, and also stick to some of their guiding wisdom on things. We haven't changed much but the most obvious deficits, because the action potential hasn't been able to be reached, which is exactly what you're looking for in your founding Constitution. You want law to come and go, and not to be all enshrined at the highest level. Whenever anyone suggests direct democracy at the Federal level, it's just a low key "I want cities/population centers/large States to dictate how small states do things."

mdorazio 4y ago

I think you're strongly misrepresenting motives here. The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them. The alternative was (and is) that farmers in Kansas who have much different concerns than urbanites in NYC get effectively zero representation at the federal level. Hence the senate was setup specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what you're now saying should exist.

robcohen 4y ago
That’s correct. Farmers in Kansas shouldn’t be dictating how this country is run. We don’t need to compromise with them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- benf76 4y ago
  If that’s your opinion why should they listen to you at all? They would secede along with the rest of the small states. You’re not understanding the principle of why everyone respects one another
  - robcohen 4y ago
    Let me flip the script here, how large does a minority group need to be before we need to do what they say? Conversely, when is a group small enough that we can disregard their desires when it conflicts with our own?
- gedy 4y ago
  Gee, maybe we should just murder the Kulaks then? Sounds like you are advocating something other than a democracy.
  - robcohen 4y ago
    No one is suggesting murder here, nice strawman. I’m just saying I’m frankly tired of living in a country where a minority is in control of our political process.

mikelevins 4y ago

The founders didn’t all have the same opinion on these matters, not by a long shot. It’s true that they didn’t generally hold democracy in high esteem. They were too well aware of its past failures, and wary of repeating them. They in fact avoided using the word "democracy" for that reason. And yes, several of them were keen on increasing the power of the federal government. The US constitution was written in a context where the federal government had been hobbled because under the Articles of Confederation it didn’t have enough power to carry out its policies. In retrospect it looks to me like they might have been able to make the Articles work, maybe with some adjustments, but they didn’t think so, in the end, and of course they were closer to the situation than I am, so even I take my opinion with a grain of salt.