4 ms·

Those people are all dead.

by benf76 4y ago

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."
        pwinnski 4y ago
        > if you took a trip in a time machine back to then, I'm fairly sure you'd come off as a raving lunatic Absolutely! Which is WHY acting as if every rule and guideline from more than 200 years is holy and must not be changed is terrible. I'm definitely not in favor of pure direct democracy, nor of changing things on a whim. However, we have had more than 200 years more of experience around the world with variations on democratic systems, and I think we can do better than we've done. It is possible, even common, to look at a situation, see that all solutions tried so far have been bad for various reasons, and so to choose a new solution that avoids all of those pitfalls, only to run into new pitfalls that hadn't been seen before. That's no knock on the latest attempt! It's progress, it's just not the last attempt that should ever be made. I think the founders were reacting to the world at the time, and their reaction was maybe the best possible one given the time and the need for compromise. They saw the dangers of the unchecked power of royalty, but underestimated the power that comes with concentrating wealth. They saw some of the economic dangers that had been revealed in countries around the world at that time, but completely missed the economic power unlocked by enabling women to enter the workforce. I could go on and on and on, and I don't think it's speaking overly-negatively about those men and their accomplishments to say that they should not be venerated as all-wise, all-knowing, or god-like, which is definitely how some political figures--including US Supreme Court justices--describe them.
      - feet 4y ago
        You appear to have misread my statement. I was implying that we should rebalance the structure away from purely wealthy land owners to make it more equal, not exclude them entirely.

Those people are all dead.

by 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."
        pwinnski 4y ago
        > if you took a trip in a time machine back to then, I'm fairly sure you'd come off as a raving lunatic Absolutely! Which is WHY acting as if every rule and guideline from more than 200 years is holy and must not be changed is terrible. I'm definitely not in favor of pure direct democracy, nor of changing things on a whim. However, we have had more than 200 years more of experience around the world with variations on democratic systems, and I think we can do better than we've done. It is possible, even common, to look at a situation, see that all solutions tried so far have been bad for various reasons, and so to choose a new solution that avoids all of those pitfalls, only to run into new pitfalls that hadn't been seen before. That's no knock on the latest attempt! It's progress, it's just not the last attempt that should ever be made. I think the founders were reacting to the world at the time, and their reaction was maybe the best possible one given the time and the need for compromise. They saw the dangers of the unchecked power of royalty, but underestimated the power that comes with concentrating wealth. They saw some of the economic dangers that had been revealed in countries around the world at that time, but completely missed the economic power unlocked by enabling women to enter the workforce. I could go on and on and on, and I don't think it's speaking overly-negatively about those men and their accomplishments to say that they should not be venerated as all-wise, all-knowing, or god-like, which is definitely how some political figures--including US Supreme Court justices--describe them.
    - feet 4y ago
      You appear to have misread my statement. I was implying that we should rebalance the structure away from purely wealthy land owners to make it more equal, not exclude them entirely.