Founding Fathers, they didn't know what they would not know

[Sinister]

They’d make an amendment declaring there are 2 genders.

They'd consider that an idiotic reason to make an amendment.

Also you keep interjecting the trans into everything.

 

[Sinister]

How does that logic benefit the country by allowing people like Chuck Shumer to be in power for what 45 years now?

Are you arguing that merely on party lines or something? McConnell is practically a vegetable and your team are parading his corpse around proudly.

 

[IanEdwards]

Nah. Having incredibly old documents that are considered infallible is very common. I don't see it as any different than people who think the details of the Bible can be applied to the modern world. The stakes are higher with the Constitution as that is actually used for high level decision making, but the mentality behind not wanting to change it is seen all over.

I'm not sure, dude. I can't think of another country that continually refers back to the equivalent of the Founding Fathers, where an argument can be referred back to 'What The Founding fathers Intended' and that is meant to be (and often is) an argument-closer, or one where 'Constitutionalism' or 'Originalism' is such a weighty and ideologically-freighted hot point. I'm also trying to think of another country where Constitutional Amendments are so frequently referred to in isolation (I'm thinking 1A and 2A obviously), or indeed, have such permanent and pronounced effects on how a society and culture has evolved, and I'm hitting blanks. Totally open to correction as I don't know the constitutional cultures of EG Italy or Germany or any other country nearly as well as the US. But (EDIT), like, think of the effects of gun violence in the US, thats a permanent cultural effect directly attributable to a single CA, i really can't think of such a pronounced equivalent elsewhere.

 

[IanEdwards]

Check out the clip I posted above where Jefferson tells Hamilton of his aversion to central power funded by capital interests after having visited France.

I have considered buying the boxset for John Adams before- worth it? its the kind of thing thats up my alley generally speaking

 

[Natural Order]

The constitution is pretty good, it was just designed for a very different world. If they amended it to correspond with the reality of modern governing it would mean more.

When the nuclear age began and presidents had to make decisions in the blink of an eye about launching city-obliterating weapons, the idea that congress could control acts of war was over.

At that moment the U.S. needed, basically, a amended constitution - or a new constitution representing a 2nd republic - maybe one that included Roosevelt’s new bill of rights.

They decided to continue on with the old one, knowing they would have to ignore parts of it in order to exist as a world power. They chose option 2 and it’s been eroded now to the point where it’s not a very effective instrument…

Great synopsis, totally agreed.

 

[UberHere]

They'd consider that an idiotic reason to make an amendment.

Also you keep interjecting the trans into everything.

Yeah it’s idiotic we need that amendment.

Cmon you know as well as I do those “I fucking love science” dipshits wouldn’t last to the first exam in a gen chem course.

 

[deviake]

The constitution is pretty good, it was just designed for a very different world. If they amended it to correspond with the reality of modern governing it would mean more.

When the nuclear age began and presidents had to make decisions in the blink of an eye about launching city-obliterating weapons, the idea that congress could control acts of war was over.

At that moment the U.S. needed, basically, an amended constitution - or a new constitution representing a 2nd republic - maybe one that included Roosevelt’s new bill of rights.

They decided to continue on with the old one, knowing they would have to ignore parts of it in order to exist as a world power. They chose that option and it’s been eroded now to the point where it’s not a very effective instrument…

I would've liked to have seen Roosevelt get his second Bill of Rights going.

I saw a short video the other day where a woman says that we need to amend the Constitution more. I tend to agree with this.

Overall, I think the flaws and limitations of our system are coming home to roost. It behooves us to also take into consideration that it was created by people who owned slaves, so not exactly a perfect start, plus the need for amendments. While the Constitution is very important, it's not a holy unchanging piece of parchment, it was a starting point.

 

[aerius]

They were conquered numerous times and went through different dynasties.

Is your conclusion really that kings are better than free societies?

To be honest I'm beginning to have mixed opinions on this question. While I acknowledge all the positives we have from a free society, there's also a strong tendency for the people to "vote for a free lunch" so to speak and fuck things up over the long term. For example, citizens will vote for more healthcare & education spending PLUS tax cuts at the same time, then 5-10 years later the government gets bankrupted and massive spending cuts are required.

With an enlightened king (which is probably as rare as a democracy that doesn't vote itself a free lunch) you can avoid the "free lunch" problem and actually do a lot of the long term planning & nation building which is very difficult or impossible to do in a free society. Yes, the people will lose some freedoms, but the trade-off is large infrastructure projects such as rail systems, electrical grid upgrades, and advanced scientific & technological research projects become easier to fund & build.

My current thought is that a hybrid system of some sort is likely the ideal solution, but I have no freakin' idea how we could implement such a system in North America.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

They'd consider that an idiotic reason to make an amendment.

Also you keep interjecting the trans into everything.

yeah cause believing there are more than 2 IS idiotic.
some people didn't get the memo though.

 

[UberHere]

To be honest I'm beginning to have mixed opinions on this question. While I acknowledge all the positives we have from a free society, there's also a strong tendency for the people to "vote for a free lunch" so to speak and fuck things up over the long term. For example, citizens will vote for more healthcare & education spending PLUS tax cuts at the same time, then 5-10 years later the government gets bankrupted and massive spending cuts are required.

With an enlightened king (which is probably as rare as a democracy that doesn't vote itself a free lunch) you can avoid the "free lunch" problem and actually do a lot of the long term planning & nation building which is very difficult or impossible to do in a free society. Yes, the people will lose some freedoms, but the trade-off is large infrastructure projects such as rail systems, electrical grid upgrades, and advanced scientific & technological research projects become easier to fund & build.

My current thought is that a hybrid system of some sort is likely the ideal solution, but I have no freakin' idea how we could implement such a system in North America.

I have mixed feelings. Allowing people who weren’t landowners to vote was always going to result in “free lunch” votes. On the other hand, who actually owns land these days? Technically if you’re paying a mortgage, the bank owns your property.

 

[Sinister]

Yeah it’s idiotic we need that amendment.

Cmon you know as well as I do those “I fucking love science” dipshits wouldn’t last to the first exam in a gen chem course.

Bro, no one around here wants to discuss this more than you do. And actually I think in those days it wasnt something anyone put this much thought into save for really religious weirdos.

 

[Sinister]

yeah cause believing there are more than 2 IS idiotic.
some people didn't get the memo though.

You and that other guy can do tons and tons of internet searches about this subject together and explore it to your hearts' content. I'm sure you'll have loads of fun in your research.

 

[UberHere]

You and that other guy can do tons and tons of internet searches about this subject together and explore it to your hearts' content. I'm sure you'll have loads of fun in your research.

Emphasis on “loads” amirite?

 

[Sinister]

To be honest I'm beginning to have mixed opinions on this question. While I acknowledge all the positives we have from a free society, there's also a strong tendency for the people to "vote for a free lunch" so to speak and fuck things up over the long term. For example, citizens will vote for more healthcare & education spending PLUS tax cuts at the same time, then 5-10 years later the government gets bankrupted and massive spending cuts are required.

With an enlightened king (which is probably as rare as a democracy that doesn't vote itself a free lunch) you can avoid the "free lunch" problem and actually do a lot of the long term planning & nation building which is very difficult or impossible to do in a free society. Yes, the people will lose some freedoms, but the trade-off is large infrastructure projects such as rail systems, electrical grid upgrades, and advanced scientific & technological research projects become easier to fund & build.

My current thought is that a hybrid system of some sort is likely the ideal solution, but I have no freakin' idea how we could implement such a system in North America.

This thought process is pretty much exactly how the British Empire began to crumble right around the time of the formation of the US. Every Monarchist had this idea that all that was needed was the RIGHT monarchy. They bankrupted the Empire so hard the British Royals were marrying themselves off to wealthy American families just for the financial benefits. Some Industrialists over here were so disgusted by this practice that they even forbade their daughters from going to England.

This is also pretty much what the Broligarchs were supposed to be bringing us. Eloy promised rail, specifically between Vegas and L.A., and instead we got that stupid @ss HyperLoop that is now just a novelty. Then he tried to become the CEO behind King Trump.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

You and that other guy can do tons and tons of internet searches about this subject together and explore it to your hearts' content. I'm sure you'll have loads of fun in your research.

why search for what any reasonable person already knows?

 

[Sinister]

I have mixed feelings. Allowing people who weren’t landowners to vote was always going to result in “free lunch” votes. On the other hand, who actually owns land these days? Technically if you’re paying a mortgage, the bank owns your property.

Seriously who gets more free lunches than the donor class? Privatized profits and publicized losses. Right now we're gonna give $40b to Argentina because some dipsh*t hedgefunds here made poor investments.

 

[Sinister]

why search for what any reasonable person already knows?

Oh I'm sure you've done plenty of searching on that subject. It's alright though, its 2025. No judgments.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Oh I'm sure you've done plenty of searching on that subject. It's alright though, its 2025. No judgments.

projection.

 

[lifelessheap]

I've said many times on here before.....ironically, the Consitution will be the direct reason for the downfall of the United States of America. The unwillingness and general inability to modify things for changing times will decapitate the country eventually.

The "the document to end all documents" is an American ego thing that will sadly be her own downfall. Biting off noses, spiting faces and all that shit...

So less Freedom will save US citizens? LoL

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Well, I've mentioned this before but I do think they were capitalism believers. This goes back to the entire point of the Federalist Papers and that the US Constition was essentially a guarantee of rights...to white Christian landowners. I dont remember if its accurate that the conversation happened between Adam's, Franklin, and Jefferson where Jefferson decried the evils of slavery or not, but Hamilton had a mind to yoke the greed of the wealthy class in the Northeast. Hence that conversation about the concentration of power in the 3rd clip in my post above. And in the 2nd clip it is shown that Hamilton was bent on US Imperialism, competing with Europe. He felt we needed the capitalists to pull it off and the Consitution is a collection of concessions that protect that class better than it protects the population. So yeah, being black back then:



They ended up just forming a new aristocracy, which was essentially adopting the plan of the British had they win the Revolutionary War:

Yeah the Enlightenment guys were in favor of a pre-modern capitalism where individuals could own personal property and freely hire people. This was woke and progressive when compared to the feudalism, manorialism, and mercantilism of the time. The French Revolution was also a bourgeois, capitalist revolution, even though it was awesome.

But the most progressive of the FF were staunchly against domination and the concentration of power so they absolutely would have been horrified at modern capitalism and the rise of big corporations. They undoubtedly would have been workers' rights type leftists if they lived to the late 19th and early 20th centuries.