"Now I will ask you, what would our forefathers do?"
Our forefathers? Our forefathers would scream injustice and treason. They would claim that the politians of today were traitors and after that they would turn to us and ask "Why? Why would you let it go so far? How could you let what we fought for die so quietly?" The very idels that this Nation was based have long erroded away, replaced and silently forgotten. They fled and fought back the throne and the crown only for our generations to slowly bring it back with thunderous applause. If the president in the 1800’s claimed that the judical branch had no power over the executive branch or that the supreme court needed to be weaked so it would bow to the throne, the people would see the treachery, our forefathers would not stand for the injustice, they would see whom the real traitors are. They would be appauled to see the people living in misery due to the oppression of the federal goveernment and its high class lackies. They would hide their tears when they’d see that peoples rights are being taken away and the only reason for justification is because a religous text says so. Has this nation forgotten? The government exsists to serve the people. And damnit, when anything, any policy has only 13% of its people agreeing with it, it must be struck down, be ended and if the government would dare to stand in the way, then the government must be abolished because "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it", and the time would then come for "new gaurds for the future security".
So you dare ask me "What would our forefathers do?"
I’ll tell you what they’d do. They’d scream treachery! and treason! They’d amass the people once again and cut the rotten scum off the face of exsistance.
But we must ask ourselfs ... Who is more of a traitor? The origianal offender, our sovereign government? Or the people, the defenders of our nation, the fools who look the other way as our rights and forefather’s dreams are being wantonly slaughtered.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Constitution was and is the most important document in America. And it really is being forgotten. Our Founding Fathers, backed by a millennium of ideas borrowed from their philosophical forerunners of the Roman Republic to the Enlightenment, were able to draft an amazing blueprint for a nation in which the people were supreme.
People think the Constitution is no longer relevant. It is old, and perhaps dated, but doesn't that go to show just how well it works? It worked for a century and a half, lending stability, order, and liberty to our nation. Not many other countries can claim that. Our sister nation in democracy, France, is already in its Fifth Republic. Our democracy has outlasted five French versions in the same interval of years because of our Constitution.
I blame Teddy Roosevelt for starting the trend that has led to the dissolution of constitutional law today. He defied Congress and the courts, and set a dangerous precedent for presidential power which too many presidents since have chosen to follow: Wilson, FDR, Nixon, Bush 43, and half a dozen others.
Honestly, I don't know why people are even so concerned with what our forefathers would think. I think that if they were alive, and we asked them "oh great intelligent forefather, what would you do?" he would say "fuck you, figure it out for yourselves." The constitution was written as a guideline, meant to be interpreted and serve as a basic structure so that it would be flexible enough to deal with unforseen complexitites of the future. The forefathers didn't have to deal with abortion or gay marriage or the vast amount of people and diversity in this country. I think it's our country now, not theirs, and while we use the constition as a guidelines, we must also make sure we stay relevant.
in response to your comment to me, i'm ashamed to admit that i've always been slightly freaked out by Asia. I have no idea why, but it's true. But that's my point! You can be interested in Asia so that I don't have to be, and vice versa with the Middle East. It's specialization/diversification at its best. : )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
My point here was that out current leaders use "our fore fathers" like its a badge of honor and to be quite honest when I die i'd rather nobody speak of me rather than use my goals and aspirations for their own greed and twisted desires.
People always use history to justify their own agendas. They twist and alter it to accomplish their own ends, like the Nazis in the '40s or Communist Russia. People need to take the initiative and learn their history, so, as the cliche goes, they aren't doomed to repeat it.
That's an interesting point. But I dig how modern day expansionists (what might be 'uber-federalists' in the day of our founding fathers) cite people like Jefferson, their lives and writings as evidence for universal healthcare policies. An educated, healthy society (although it's not an agrarian one) are ends that he fought for, although you're right-- he would have never imagined government's hand being so large.
Who do you think allowed such an expansion? The people or the representatives who were supposed to be stewards of the Constitution you cite?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Now there's a complicated question... Our elected officials expanded their own power on their prerogative, but the people are the ones who let them, who sent them the message that it was acceptable (by reelecting them).
Sometimes, the people even supported massive expansions of the government's power over our lives, such as during the Great Depression. The contrasts between Hoover's and FDR's popularity attests to this: Hoover advocated no government intervention during the Depression, while FDR went over the top in getting involved in people's personal affairs. As we all know, Hoover is now largely disliked by ordinary Americans, while FDR is seen as one of our greatest leaders.
Ultimately, though, if the people want more liberty and less government interference, it's up to them to elect such-minded officials. If the people want more governmental power and less personal freedom, then they'll elect such-minded officials. I'd prefer the former, though it often seems people like me constitute a political minority in this country.
My caveat to those who advocate the latter: many of the world's most oppressive governments and brutal dictators started out as duly elected officials.
Well said--Huey Long was well-loved. So was Hitler.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Obviously, you'd prefer an judicial activist interpretation of the Constitution. I'm always wary about ignoring or dismissing the Constitution, though. After all, it was disregard for constitutional law that led to the War in Iraq, the domestic wiretap scandal, and the evolution of the Executive Order (which essentially turns the President into the Premier). The Constitution is a protective document for the people, not for the government.
There are issues that the Constitution doesn't address, and its Framers knew that the political and social situations in the country they founded would fluctuate greatly over the years. That's basically why they included the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states (paraphrasing here) that any issue not addressed by the Constitution, like gay marriage or abortion, is left to the States and the people to decide. The Feds should back off and let our States and “we the people” ourselves figure how to deal with these new issues.
If the president in the 1800’s claimed that the judical branch had no power over the executive branch or that the supreme court needed to be weaked so it would bow to the throne, the people would see the treachery, our forefathers would not stand for the injustice, they would see whom the real traitors are.
I would like to point out that President Andrew Jackson defies your point.
The Supreme Court was all like, "Georgia, you don't have the right to make the Cherokee move off that land!"
And Andrew Jackson was like, "If you want that to be true, you can enforce it."
And of course the Supreme Court couldn't because that was the Executive Branch's [Jackson's] job. And then Jackson was applauded because the general opinion back then was very anti-Native American.
But I do agree with you that if the Founders (must love them!) were alive today, they would probably have heart attacks or die in apoplectic fits. Especially Jefferson.