Is "The Founding Fathers wanted it that way" a logical fallacy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. Some sort of Appeal to Authority I'd guess.

Now if you can explain why you think the Founding Fathers were correct in this case and why it's a good position, it's not a logical fallacy, but the sheer number of arguments I've seen on this forum which essentially are saying that the Constitution should never be amended* are quite annoying.

*No they aren't saying this outright but "NEVER CHANGE WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED!" ultimately amounts to this.

[bullmoose88]

Yes.

That doesn't mean we should disregard what they've said on the matter, but taking what they've said as conclusive proof or the word of God is folly.

[memphis]

All enslaved persons should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation. Indians don't count at all. It's what the founders wanted.

[Vepres]

Not when interpreting the constitution, for they wrote it.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Was it just me who got a weird imidge in their head when reading the subject title of the founding fathers singing the Backstreet Boys song, I want it that way O.o 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Definitely.

[Tuck!]

All enslaved persons should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation. Indians don't count at all. It's what the founders wanted.

What do you suggest enslaved persons should count as?

[useful idiot]

It shouldn't be completely discounted, but their views are only completely necessary in the issue of interpreting and applying the constitution.

[Alcon]

Not inherently.  If you claim that the best way of interpreting the Constitution is intrinsically the way the Founding Fathers meant it, it's not fallacious.  It's only a fallacy if you don't claim that goodness in Constitutional interpretation is determined by how the Founding Fathers wanted it, and then use the argument.

[Franzl]

Yes.

That doesn't mean we should disregard what they've said on the matter, but taking what they've said as conclusive proof or the word of God is folly.

[The Mikado]

Not inherently.  If you claim that the best way of interpreting the Constitution is intrinsically the way the Founding Fathers meant it, it's not fallacious.  It's only a fallacy if you don't claim that goodness in Constitutional interpretation is determined by how the Founding Fathers wanted it, and then use the argument.

I agree with Alcon.  There's nothing wrong with saying "This is what the Founders intended."  What's wrong is saying that that way is automatically better than something else purely by virtue of the Founders wanting it.

[Free Palestine]

What the Founders intended should be taken into consideration when interpreting the document they wrote.  And any changes to it should be through the amendment process.  The real logical fallacy here is the idea that constitutionalists worship the Founding Fathers.  The belief is simply that if you're going to twist words to get whatever you want from the Constitution, we might as well not have one at all.

[John Dibble]

It shouldn't be completely discounted, but their views are only completely necessary in the issue of interpreting and applying the constitution.

This.

[WillK]

The main fallacy is the idea that all the Founding Fathers wanted things the exact same way.

[Free Palestine]

The main fallacy is the idea that all the Founding Fathers wanted things the exact same way.

True.  Otherwise they wouldn't have put in a process by which the Constitution could be amended.

[Хahar 🤔]

If you claim that the best way of interpreting the Constitution is intrinsically the way the Founding Fathers meant it, it's not fallacious.

Appeal to Tradition, no?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you claim that the best way of interpreting the Constitution is intrinsically the way the Founding Fathers meant it, it's not fallacious.

Appeal to Tradition, no?

No, it's not an Appeal to Tradition if one can point to evidence that what you claim to be their interpretation actually was their interpretation.  If you're taking one's own views and ascribing them to the Founders without proof, then it would be, or if one were to assert that the Constitution they wrote was the best of all possible Constitutions for all time.