Legislation Through Extortion

[rwoy]

What do you think?  Reasonable tactic or spitting in the face of the founders?

[7,052,770]

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

Republicans generally claim they do, so if you want to try to convince them to get off their crazy asses and pass a clean CR and an increase in the debt ceiling, appealing to their preferences makes perfect sense.  Of course, if you'd rather they'd just continue on their present course until our economy is is ruins just so the Democrats can gain some political advantage from the wreckage, you're sentiment is perfectly reasonable.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

Ugh, any decent American.

[ElectionsGuy]

What do you think?  Reasonable tactic or spitting in the face of the founders?

Spitting in the face of the founders, however politicians today do it all the time, so it seems like people have forgotten how government was supposed to work. But hey, they were just some white racist men who are out of touch with society today (typical liberal statement).

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

Yep, very typical.

[Conflicted Progressive]

What do you think?  Reasonable tactic or spitting in the face of the founders?

Spitting in the face of the founders, however politicians today do it all the time, so it seems like people have forgotten how government was supposed to work. But hey, they were just some white racist men who are out of touch with society today (typical liberal statement).

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

Yep, very typical.

Please explain how this is objectively untrue...

[7,052,770]

Why do Republicans act like the Founders were some monolithic bloc who all believed the same thing, when they were in fact as ideologically diverse as Congress today?  What did Patrick Henry and Alexander Hamilton have in common, other than not wanting to be ruled by King George?  No, "the Founders intended" is just code "I'm going to make up a justification for my already-existing opinions."

Secondly, the nation that the Founding Fathers wasn't great.  Sorry, Founding Fathers, but you didn't built that.  Future patriots like William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama made that happen.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why do Republicans act like the Founders were some monolithic bloc who all believed the same thing, when they were in fact as ideologically diverse as Congress today?  What did Patrick Henry and Alexander Hamilton have in common, other than not wanting to be ruled by King George?  No, "the Founders intended" is just code "I'm going to make up a justification for my already-existing opinions."

No, Hamilton and Henry were polar opposites. Quit making up strawmen. Nobody is claiming they are monolithic. "The founders intended" is a complex argument. Keep in mind, the Constitution is the coming together of Hamilton and Henry, Jefferson and Adams, and so on. It was a compromise.

Secondly, the nation that the Founding Fathers wasn't great.  Sorry, Founding Fathers, but you didn't built that.  Future patriots like William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama made that happen.

This second paragraph is just your subjective opinion and is highly irrelevant. My side has Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Grover Cleveland, and Bob Taft, Ron Paul, Calvin Coolidge, Isabel Paterson, Zora Neale Hurston, and so on.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What do you think?  Reasonable tactic or spitting in the face of the founders?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

[krazen1211]

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why do Republicans act like the Founders were some monolithic bloc who all believed the same thing, when they were in fact as ideologically diverse as Congress today?  What did Patrick Henry and Alexander Hamilton have in common, other than not wanting to be ruled by King George?  No, "the Founders intended" is just code "I'm going to make up a justification for my already-existing opinions."

Secondly, the nation that the Founding Fathers wasn't great.  Sorry, Founding Fathers, but you didn't built that.  Future patriots like William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama made that happen.

Even though they were in the 18th century, the founding fathers did have a 20th century liberal, Thomas Paine.

[Redalgo]

What do you think?  Reasonable tactic or spitting in the face of the founders?

It is corrupt and deplorable but probably also something that has always polluted politics.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

Ugh, any decent American.

And why is that?  Don't get me wrong, the Founding Fathers and Framers did a great deal of good things, and I'm thankful for what they did, but it's not like they were these geniuses who came up with flawless documents that can stand the test of time.  The first attempt they made ended up being so flawed that it was scrapped within 10 years and replaced by a document that arguably had the possibility of being illegally enacted.  Luckily Rhode Island ended up ratifying it, so that problem was avoided.

So you've got the Framers, and they drafted a document that was once again flawed enough that less than a century later, a President had to butcher the principles of that document in order to preserve the unity of the nation.

Too many Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, treat the Constitution like some infallible Bible that solves all problems, when in reality, it is a severely flawed document.

[Silent Hunter]

And why is that?  Don't get me wrong, the Founding Fathers and Framers did a great deal of good things, and I'm thankful for what they did, but it's not like they were these geniuses who came up with flawless documents that can stand the test of time.  The first attempt they made ended up being so flawed that it was scrapped within 10 years and replaced by a document that arguably had the possibility of being illegally enacted.  Luckily Rhode Island ended up ratifying it, so that problem was avoided.

So you've got the Framers, and they drafted a document that was once again flawed enough that less than a century later, a President had to butcher the principles of that document in order to preserve the unity of the nation.

Too many Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, treat the Constitution like some infallible Bible that solves all problems, when in reality, it is a severely flawed document.

Excellent points; most countries with shorter histories of democracy have made major rewrites to their constitutions - if the Founders were around today, they would not have produced the same document.

[pbrower2a]

Who gives a damn about the Founders?

Ugh, any decent American.

And why is that?  Don't get me wrong, the Founding Fathers and Framers did a great deal of good things, and I'm thankful for what they did, but it's not like they were these geniuses who came up with flawless documents that can stand the test of time.  The first attempt they made ended up being so flawed that it was scrapped within 10 years and replaced by a document that arguably had the possibility of being illegally enacted.  Luckily Rhode Island ended up ratifying it, so that problem was avoided.

So you've got the Framers, and they drafted a document that was once again flawed enough that less than a century later, a President had to butcher the principles of that document in order to preserve the unity of the nation.

Too many Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, treat the Constitution like some infallible Bible that solves all problems, when in reality, it is a severely flawed document.

As Gilbert Keith Chesterton put it, "Before you tear down a fence, be sure that you know why it is there".

A venerable tradition has some reason for coming into existence and some cause for outlasting those who started it. English common law and the Constitution of the United States fit clearly into the category of "venerable traditions". One repudiates even parts of them only with great care and never as a trifle or fad.

The Founding Fathers  picked and chose from traditions with which they were familiar; they knew the Hebrews from the Bible and knew the ancient Greeks and Romans from their secular readings. They had British tradition from their colonial heritage. They knew of the (then) contemporary Republics of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Poland but rejected them as models. More relevant was the government of the Republic of Venice, with a Doge (holding hereditary power analogous to the President of the United States, an aristocratic Senate,  and a participatory body in which in theory anyone could participate. Such allowed a separation of powers then rare.

...But not only do we have the words of a Constitution, we also have interpretations. Some interpretations are standard; some are cranky at best and heretical at worst. Even a Communist could interpret the Constitution as a call for a Marxist-Leninist model of government, and a racist fascist could simply deny the humanity of people defined as non-persons. 

The most obvious neglect of the Constitution was slavery, tolerated in practice as an institution in decline.  Slavery got a new impetus in cotton, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments effectively correct that great mistake.

Could women vote without violating old principle? Why not -- but that required a Constitutional amendment. Could voters elect members of the US Senate with fewer problems than state legislatures? Voters have elected some horrid Senators, but just think of the sort of politician the Republican-dominated Michigan State legislature might have appointed in 2012:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-yff40&p=hoekstra%20super%20bowl%20ad&type=

Someone with the intellectual vacuity to sponsor this sort of ad isn't the sort that I want determining whether treaties and appointments to the Supreme Court.

Poll taxes? Not necessary any more than tolls are necessary for funding two-lane blacktop roads.