Should the views of the Founding Fathers matter in modern political policy?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Inspired by Aggregate Demand.

[SWE]

how did alexander hamilton feel about abortion?

[Mordecai]

Some of those guys owned human beings as property, so I'm going to say fck no.

[AggregateDemand]

Of course. If you want to move beyond the past, you have to recognize the underlying ideals and tenets, and then critique them. Some aspects of historical civics will prove useful, some will need improvement, and some will be discarded as useless.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, philosophies of how our country was set up affect how politicians govern today. We've generally gotten away from the founding fathers vision of government, so I think it is important.

(Obviously equating it to modern day social issues or anything of the like would be stupid)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

Well yes. Understanding the views of the American Enlightenment is good for a greater understanding of political philosophy throughout history, but I'm referring more to the "the founders opposed X, therefore we must vote against X" line of thought common on the American right.

[Goldwater]

The Founding Fathers had radically different views from each other, so it's ultimately a meaningless term.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Rule 1 of being Alfred: Never trust a man with more slaves than teeth.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Founding Fathers had radically different views from each other, so it's ultimately a meaningless term.

^^^

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

Well yes. Understanding the views of the American Enlightenment is good for a greater understanding of political philosophy throughout history, but I'm referring more to the "the founders opposed X, therefore we must vote against X" line of thought common on the American right.

Which is why I voted no.

[Mopsus]

how did alexander hamilton feel about abortion?

Fun Fact: When the United States was founded, abortion was legal until the first time that a woman experienced quickening, which usually occurs towards the middle of the pregnancy.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

They're all dead.

[H. Ross Peron]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

^This. I suspect many of the Founding Fathers, considering their devotion to republican values, would be rather unhappy with the quasi-idolatrous cult of the Founding Fathers many Americans have.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

[Mechaman]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

Mainly this.  Though I do believe that the views of the Founding Fathers should be taken into consideration for "if you don't learn from your past you're doomed to repeat it" reasons.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The problem historically speaking is that it's not clear what exactly the founders ideas actually were and the actions of the first five presidents of the United States - those considered founders - actively contradicted what they had previously said and were, at least, rather selective when it came to intellectual consistency in power.

[© tweed]

only Aaron Burr's

[Mechaman]

Only to the extent that the views of other past political philosophers matter. I voted no, because that's something less than treating them as demigods.

Mainly this.  Though I do believe that the views of the Founding Fathers should be taken into consideration for "if you don't learn from your past you're doomed to repeat it" reasons.

To expand upon this.

I'll first start off with this quote:

The Founding Fathers had radically different views from each other, so it's ultimately a meaningless term.

Not really an original part of my post/argument, but a nevertheless good point.  It is kind of absurd that some politicians take a "love it or leave it" approach with Constitutional interpretation when the thing itself was actually a compromise between those who wanted to stay in the Confederation and those who wanted a very strong and centralized government.  Basically, how can one be such a diehard defender of a compromise to defend it religiously two hundred some odd years later?

And then of course we have to take into consideration of what those men valued at the time and what their thoughts on society were.  Which brings in another quote:

Rule 1 of being Alfred: Never trust a man with more slaves than teeth.

Fact is, these were men who lived in the late 18th century and it is hard to view most of any of them (except maybe Aaron Burr) as "good" by our modern day standards.  This was a society that viewed black people as property, were propagating the idea that women should stay in the home, would've laughed in your face if you suggested that voting is a right and not a privilege (though to be fair there are still some people who do believe this), literally punished people for dancing, seriously believed that Irish people were subhuman "vermin" with a natural predisposition towards violence and drunkedness, thought the only good Indians were dead ones, Jews and Roman Catholics were in concordance with Beelzebub, etc. etc..  And that's just the things I could think of off the top of my head.

So yes, while I don't believe the Constitution should be completely discarded and ignored (I believe the nation would've been much better off if some politicians were more religiously devout in following the Amendments on privacy rights and free speech, for instance), I don't think it's too incredibly absurd to view it as a "living document" that is subject to revision, given the progress of society.

[AggregateDemand]

The results are interesting when you consider the amount of belly-aching about gutting the New Deal and Great Society.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The Founding Fathers had radically different views from each other, so it's ultimately a meaningless term.

This.

[Maxwell]

If you wanna change the constitution, amend it. Hell, even get a constitutional convention going. Otherwise, shut up.

[Indy Texas]

Do Germans fret about what Charlemagne would have done about the Greece bailout?

Do British MPs insist they not stray from the values of Richard the Lionheart?

[Orser67]

I'm not an originalist, but their opinion of the document they wrote should at least be relevant.

More generally, they established one of the most successful and stable governments in the history of the world, so I think their opinions are owed some respect.

[Citizen Hats]

If there's anything I learned from Canada's founding fathers, its the value of hard drinking.