We have forgotten what the Founders knew

[Peter1469]

We have forgotten what the Founders knew (http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/unalienable-rights/)

Many want to toss our heritage into the burn pit and consolidate power with the central government. I wouldn't say that they forgot what the Founders knew. I would say that they disdain it.


Take for example the Founders on our rights. George Washington wrote that the American Founding occurred during a time “when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.” That new understanding of our rights is what the Founding is all about.

But do we today remember what the Founders knew?


The Declaration of Independence declared that we have “unalienable rights.” It went on to issue a challenge to the legitimacy of every government then in existence, declaring that securing these unalienable rights is the very purpose of government (“…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”).


Unalienable rights are at the core of the Founding. Yet except for ritual observances on special occasions, have you noticed that unalienable rights have largely gone missing from American politics? In day-to-day politics constitutional rights are often invoked, but very rarely or almost never unalienable rights. Though familiar in one sense, the term “unalienable rights” has the unfamiliarity of a special item only brought out for special occasions.


For example, I listened to our rights being discussed on talk radio recently. The topic was billboards with this message: “In the beginning, God created…” Evidently, some atheists and others were objecting to the message on the billboards, even claiming it needed to be suppressed because it was “hate speech.” The host of the show defended the people who had posted the message, claiming they had a constitutional right to post the message. Because he believed he was fighting the good fight, we can appreciate his good intentions. But was he fighting for our rights on the right ground?


Not according to the Founders.


If the talk show host had been Thomas Jefferson he would have said they had an unalienable right to post their message.


But why not call it a constitutional right? Don’t we derive our right to freedom of speech from the Constitution, specifically from the First Amendment?


To get to the correct answer to this question, we need to remember what the Constitution does. It defines how the federal government is to function—and the very purpose of government, according to the Founders, is to secure our unalienable rights. Consequently, unalienable rights are senior to, on a higher level than, even the Constitution itself. The sequence in logic goes like this:


• Unalienable Rights first
• Then the Constitution: the Framers’ (brilliant) design for a government to fulfill the purpose of government by securing our unalienable rights.


The Constitution is all about defining and dispersing the powers of government. It is fundamentally a design for limiting the government, limiting it precisely in order to secure our unalienable rights from people in government who would try to violate our rights. As Jefferson said, “let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

[MMC]

We didn't forget.....we just need to remove the Democrats from the equation and all will fall back into place. :wink:

[FindersKeepers]

We have forgotten what the Founders knew (http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/unalienable-rights/)

Many want to toss our heritage into the burn pit and consolidate power with the central government. I wouldn't say that they forgot what the Founders knew. I would say that they disdain it.


It's a sad thing when we dismiss the incredible contributions those men made - not just to US citizens - but as an example of a better way to govern for the entire world.

Yet, we have people today that not only ignore the lessons -- they are doing their level best to remove all traces of some of our Founders, simply because they lived in a time when slavery was accepted -- and those brave men did not dedicate their lives to eradicating it.

Our Founders were brilliant men who accomplished the near-impossible.

If new generations do not learn and internalize those lessons, there will come a time when the old problems will cycle back.

I have no faith that Generation Snowflake can accomplish what our Founders did.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

[Chris]

It is remarkable how the people's rights and the government's power got inverted to where they depend on it. The inversion happened over time as the rights (powers) to act to live free and pursue happiness were replaced by rights seen as society's obligation to not only decided but to act for you with the full force of law behind it.

[Peter1469]

It is remarkable how the people's rights and the government's power got inverted to where they depend on it. The inversion happened over time as the rights (powers) to act to live free and pursue happiness were replaced by rights seen as society's obligation to not only decided but to act for you with the full force of law behind it.

It was deliberate. Done by dumbing down public school education. Had it not been for that, the hard left would be as large as the trasngendered population.

[Tahuyaman]

We have forgotten what the Founders knew
I don't believe it's an issue of forgetting. It's an issue of intentionally ignoring or redefining what they said and stood for.

[Cletus]

A big part of the problem is that for our society to exist as the Founders intended, people have to accept responsibility for their own maintenance. They need to accept that Government is not going to be there to holds their hands and provide for them from the cradle to the grave. That have to accept that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

The majority of people today are not willing to do that. It is just too much like work.

[Peter1469]

A big part of the problem is that for our society to exist as the Founders intended, people have to accept responsibility for their own maintenance. They need to accept that Government is not going to be there to holds their hands and provide for them from the cradle to the grave. That have to accept that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

The majority of people today are not willing to do that. It is just too much like work.

exo's ears are burning. He should move.

[Ethereal]

We didn't forget.....we just need to remove the Democrats from the equation and all will fall back into place. :wink:

Republicans are just as responsible for consolidating power with the federal government as Democrats are.

The destruction of America's heritage has been a bipartisan affair.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Many want to toss our heritage into the burn pit and consolidate power with the central government. I wouldn't say that they forgot what the Founders knew. I would say that they disdain it. Establishing a government to protect us from the government? The ruling class's Constitution spins dizzily in hypnotic cognitive dissonance.

[Peter1469]

Establishing a government to protect us from the government? The ruling class's Constitution spins dizzily in hypnotic cognitive dissonance.

Thanks for the contribution.

[MMC]

Republicans are just as responsible for consolidating power with the federal government as Democrats are.

The destruction of America's heritage has been a bipartisan affair.

Yeah but we weren't talking Republicans. They still want to keep the Constitution intact. Their not looking to break it.

[AZ Jim]

Republicans= Regressive
Democrats= Progressive

If you have to live in the past, you'll not be able to dwell in the inevitable future. Look forward, not back. The "good ole days" weren't really that good.

[AeonPax]

`
`
The article was well written but hardly convincing. It seems the author was preaching to the choir. When people talk "original intent", they are assuming they can enter the mind of the author. As everyone online is a constitutional expert or scholar, one opinion is just as good as another.

[MMC]

`
`
The article was well written but hardly convincing. It seems the author was preaching to the choir. When people talk "original intent", they are assuming they can enter the mind of the author. As everyone online is a constitutional expert or scholar, one opinion is just as good as another.

Then there is looking for that feedback, huh? From their own field and others. Why do you think they look for that?

[AeonPax]

Then there is looking for that feedback, huh? From their own field and others. Why do you think they look for that?
`
I come here because this is where all the lawyers hang out. Actually, you do have a good point. I overlooked that aspect. All I can say, even among legal scholars, there is dissonance. SCOTUS likes making their rulings as narrow as possible. However, sometimes a broad ruling is unavoidable, such as in Obergefell v. Hodges where the case itself was about law v. morality. One of the justices had to make a majority, according to constitutional law. This was a major blow for the religious right but....I'm going way off topic. sorry.

[Chris]

`
`
The article was well written but hardly convincing. It seems the author was preaching to the choir. When people talk "original intent", they are assuming they can enter the mind of the author. As everyone online is a constitutional expert or scholar, one opinion is just as good as another.


Original intent, according to Originalists, is found in the plain meaning of the words at the time they were written and, when it comes to law, voted on and signed off on. It takes a little bit of looking at the texts of the time, including dictionaries, and linguistic analysis, like understanding the nature of the nominative absolute in the 2nd amendment. Going beyond that, looking at even the various political opinions of the day, introduces selection bias, and applying today's meanings and structures, anachronism.

[AeonPax]

Original intent, according to Originalists, is found in the plain meaning of the words at the time they were written and, when it comes to law, voted on and signed off on. It takes a little bit of looking at the texts of the time, including dictionaries, and linguistic analysis, like understanding the nature of the nominative absolute in the 2nd amendment. Going beyond that, looking at even the various political opinions of the day, introduces selection bias, and applying today's meanings and structures, anachronism.
`
Yes, academia provides may people who devote their time to constitutional research and study. But as I said, as long as there have been such scholars, there has been disagreement about U.S. constitutional law.

[Ethereal]

Yeah but we weren't talking Republicans. They still want to keep the Constitution intact. Their not looking to break it.

They have already broke it, and badly.

[Ethereal]

Republicans= Regressive
Democrats= Progressive

If you have to live in the past, you'll not be able to dwell in the inevitable future. Look forward, not back. The "good ole days" weren't really that good.

There is nothing progressive about big, authoritarian government.

[Ethereal]

The constitution was written in plain language for a reason.

It was never intended to be the sole purview of judges and lawyers.

You don't need a law degree in order to understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

[Chris]

There is nothing progressive about big, authoritarian government.

It's kind of repetitive, recursive.

[MisterVeritis]

There is nothing progressive about big, authoritarian government.
I think the term he was looking for was "repressive" as in Democrats = Repressive.

[Ethereal]

It's kind of repetitive, recursive.

Democrats always love to assume the mantle of progress and modernity, but if you really examine their core belief system, it's nothing more than recycled institutions from the ancient past: bureaucracy, subsidies, taxes, economic central planning, FIAT money, etc., all date back to ancient times. There is absolutely nothing novel or modern about them.

[Chris]

`
Yes, academia provides may people who devote their time to constitutional research and study. But as I said, as long as there have been such scholars, there has been disagreement about U.S. constitutional law.

A lot of which you can filter out as immoral or irrational. Law, if anything, ought to be moral and reasonable.

[Chris]

Democrats always love to assume the mantle of progress and modernity, but if you really examine their core belief system, it's nothing more than recycled institutions from the ancient past: bureaucracy, subsidies, taxes, economic central planning, FIAT money, etc., all date back to ancient times. There is absolutely nothing novel or modern about them.

The very foundations modern liberalism rejects. When you reject the past and strike out to create something new, you're more likely to repeat the mistakes of the past, as Santayana pointed out.

[Cletus]

`
`
The article was well written but hardly convincing. It seems the author was preaching to the choir. When people talk "original intent", they are assuming they can enter the mind of the author. As everyone online is a constitutional expert or scholar, one opinion is just as good as another.

It is not difficult in the vast majority of instances to determine original intent. Read the debates and what the Framers themselves had to say. Many of them wrote extensively about the Constitution and what the various articles and clauses mean. Madison can answer almost any questions you might have.

[AeonPax]

A lot of which you can filter out as immoral or irrational. Law, if anything, ought to be moral and reasonable.
`
Natural law?

[AeonPax]

It is not difficult in the vast majority of instances to determine original intent. Read the debates and what the Framers themselves had to say. Many of them wrote extensively about the Constitution and what the various articles and clauses mean. Madison can answer almost any questions you might have.
`
I'm not a constitutional exegesist.

[Peter1469]

Republicans= Regressive
Democrats= Progressive

If you have to live in the past, you'll not be able to dwell in the inevitable future. Look forward, not back. The "good ole days" weren't really that good.

Example of public schools. A total mess.

[Peter1469]

The Founders were not in support of Statism like the current crop of hard left liberals we have today.
`
`
The article was well written but hardly convincing. It seems the author was preaching to the choir. When people talk "original intent", they are assuming they can enter the mind of the author. As everyone online is a constitutional expert or scholar, one opinion is just as good as another.

[Chris]

`
Natural law?

That is the general meaning of natural law, natural in being based on who man is, rational and moral from there.

But it need not be based on natural law, but reasonableness and morality (synonymous here) can be used as measures of different interpretative meanings. For example, and this I think was mentioned in the OP, there are two general readings of the Bill of Rights, one that they are rights the people prohibit the government from violating, two that they are rights granted by the government. You can read the amendments and see that each one supports the first reading and none support the second. The second is irrational and (I would argue) immoral simply based on a plain reading of the words.

[MisterVeritis]

`
I'm not a constitutional exegesist.
Why not? It just takes a bit of reading.

[AeonPax]

The Founders were not in support of Statism like the current crop of hard left liberals we have today.
`
Who am I to doubt what you say?
`

[MisterVeritis]

`
Who am I to doubt what you say?
`
Are you claiming an inability to read or to reason?

[AeonPax]

Why not? It just takes a bit of reading.
`
OK. I'll put that on my 2019 reading list.

[MisterVeritis]

`
OK. I'll put that on my 2019 reading list.
Fascinating. Avoiding the end of the nation is far higher on my list of important things. I wonder what will come after the end of the end of the US?

[Mister D]

Democrats always love to assume the mantle of progress and modernity, but if you really examine their core belief system, it's nothing more than recycled institutions from the ancient past: bureaucracy, subsidies, taxes, economic central planning, FIAT money, etc., all date back to ancient times. There is absolutely nothing novel or modern about them.

I disagree. We're talking about a worldview or an ideology that is a product of the rationalism of the European Enlightenment. Progressivism is distinctly modern precisely because it's a "core belief system" It's an approach to politics and society. It's a way of thinking about political and social life that you simply don't find in the past. There is a difference between some Roman administrator, for example, concocting a more efficient way of obtaining the money he needs and proposing that all social, political and economic institutions should be rationalized as a matter of course. The demand that all customs and traditions should be subject to the dictates of a disembodied reason (i.e. an abstract reason not tempered by historical experience) is a characteristically modern one.

Quite frankly, I can think of no major political philosophy that is more rational than communism and we all know what a disaster that was.

[AeonPax]

Are you claiming an inability to read or to reason?
`
No, but you are dull and boring to me sometimes.

[MMC]

`
I come here because this is where all the lawyers hang out. Actually, you do have a good point. I overlooked that aspect. All I can say, even among legal scholars, there is dissonance. SCOTUS likes making their rulings as narrow as possible. However, sometimes a broad ruling is unavoidable, such as in Obergefell v. Hodges where the case itself was about law v. morality. One of the justices had to make a majority, according to constitutional law. This was a major blow for the religious right but....I'm going way off topic. sorry.

That s alright, and don't worry I'm not a lawyer. http://i.imgur.com/tFTU3Ig.gif ..... :kiss:

[Chris]

I disagree. We're talking about a worldview or an ideology that is a product of the rationalism of the European Enlightenment. Progressivism is distinctly modern precisely because it's a "core belief system" It's an approach to politics and society. It's a way of thinking about political and social life that you simply don't find in the past. There is a difference between some Roman administrator, for example, concocting a more efficient way of obtaining the money he needs and proposing that all social, political and economic institutions should be rationalized as a matter of course. The demand that all customs and traditions should be subject to the dictates of a disembodied reason (i.e. an abstract reason not tempered by historical experience) is a characteristically modern one.

Quite frankly, I can think of no major political philosophy that is more rational than communism and we all know what a disaster that was.


The faith in reasoning derives from the past but decoupling it from experience is unique in history.

I don't know why call it progress. I believe progressives, some at least, would argue it's evolutionary, borrowing from biology, the way even some communists did, but biological evolution is not progressive, it's random in mutation.

[Mister D]

The faith in reasoning derives from the past but decoupling it from experience is unique in history.

I don't know why call it progress. I believe progressives, some at least, would argue it's evolutionary, borrowing from biology, the way even some communists did, but biological evolution is not progressive, it's random in mutation.

I agree that you can find instances of that kind of thinking among individual intellectuals but what we saw in early modernity took the proportions of a rival religion with its priests, its dogma and its rites.

Oh, they most certainly think in evolutionary terms and I've long been amused by their projection of the European experience onto human experience as a whole. Apparently, the rest of the world is evolving to be like us. They never stop to think about what they're really saying.

[decedent]

We didn't forget.....we just need to remove the Democrats from the equation and all will fall back into place. :wink:


Good ol' Republicans want to decrease police and incarceration, spend less on war, allow people the freedom to love others how they and to control their own bodies, give minorities a voice. Wait... wrong party.

[AZ Jim]

There is nothing progressive about big, authoritarian government.No! But what it can accomplish is.

[Mister D]

Good ol' Republicans want to decrease police and incarceration, spend less on war, allow people the freedom to love others how they and to control their own bodies, give minorities a voice. Wait... wrong party.

Who doesn't allow people to love whoever they want? Oh, that's just goofy rhetoric. Stick to satire.

[Chris]

No! But what it can accomplish is.

What exactly has it accomplished? We can point to technological progress, the building of one idea on others. We can even point to economic progress, we're better off economically now than in the past thanks to disvison of labor, specialization and trade. But we see very, very little moral progress. So what exactly has modern liberalism/progressivism accomplished?

[Mister D]

What exactly has it accomplished? We can point to technological progress, the building of one idea on others. We can even point to economic progress, we're better off economically now than in the past thanks to disvison of labor, specialization and trade. But we see very, very little moral progress. So what exactly has modern liberalism/progressivism accomplished?

Not sure I'd link technological progress so closely with "big government".

[MisterVeritis]

`
No, but you are dull and boring to me sometimes.
I understand. We were educated differently. I rely on original sources in addition to modern "explanations". I can think for myself. You appear to be more comfortable when you are told what to believe or led to "right" conclusions. I lack the patience to do for you what you ought to do for yourself. No doubt that makes me appear dull and boring. Sometimes.

I just see you as incredibly lazy and spoiled.

[MisterVeritis]

No! But what it can accomplish is.
LOL. I love your sense of humor. Who knew that the instruments of tyranny would free us?

[decedent]

Who doesn't allow people to love whoever they want? Oh, that's just goofy rhetoric. Stick to satire.

Only certain people may kiss certain people.
Only certain people may marry certain people.
Only certain body parts must go in certain places, be they bathrooms or holes.


On a side note: only certain people may board space ships.

[Common]

The little people all need govt, without it the few big people that have it all, would take the rest.
The rich, the corporations the big banks, care not for anything or anyone but profit. Weve seen the results of that in the last 20 yrs.

The govt did NOT put us where we are, the 3 entities above WHO OWN OUR GOVT put us here

[Mister D]

Only certain people may kiss certain people.
Only certain people may marry certain people.
Only certain body parts must go in certain places, be they bathrooms or holes.


On a side note: only certain people may board space ships.

So no one. Gotcha.

Wait... I get it. You're satirizing progressive kooks now. lol

[MisterVeritis]

Only certain people may kiss certain people.
Only certain people may marry certain people.
Only certain body parts must go in certain places, be they bathrooms or holes.


On a side note: only certain people may board space ships.
Kook alert. Usual suspect.

[Mister D]

Kook alert. Usual suspect.

Don't worry. It's satire. :grin:

[AeonPax]

That s alright, and don't worry I'm not a lawyer. ..... :kiss:
`
Actually. it's not alright. The high court need 9 justices to function. Justice is not being served by stalling judicial nominations.

[Common]

Doesnt the constitution secure the right of men to pee next to everyones daughter ?

[decedent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opr23vf1iZg

My fellow kook.

[MisterVeritis]

`
Actually. it's not alright. The high court need 9 justices to function. Justice is not being served by stalling judicial nominations.
Why not?

[MisterVeritis]

Doesnt the constitution secure the right of men to pee next to everyones daughter ?
In the view of some it does.

[Mister D]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opr23vf1iZg

My fellow kook.

Is there something in there about not being allowed to love whoever you want?

[AeonPax]

I understand. We were educated differently. I rely on original sources in addition to modern "explanations". I can think for myself. You appear to be more comfortable when you are told what to believe or led to "right" conclusions. I lack the patience to do for you what you ought to do for yourself. No doubt that makes me appear dull and boring. Sometimes. I just see you as incredibly lazy and spoiled.
`
I gain nothing, one way or the other, in a war of obfuscated insults. I don't have an ego that way. Mutual respect, that's all I ask.

[MisterVeritis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opr23vf1iZg

My fellow kook.
Given his scenario, it makes sense to keep the queers off the Ark. Don't worry though. We will always have queers with us.

[MisterVeritis]

`
I gain nothing, one way or the other, in a war of obfuscated insults. I don't have an ego that way. Mutual respect, that's all I ask.
Well, then. Do for yourself what you ought.

[Chris]

Not sure I'd link technological progress so closely with "big government".

Right, separate. I was just listing some areas man has advanced materially.

Interesting to think about though, advances in technology, not just in warfare, but communications, made contemporary big government possible, but in the end may undermine it with peer-to-peer, Internet of things, Uber, etc.

[zelmo1234]

It's a sad thing when we dismiss the incredible contributions those men made - not just to US citizens - but as an example of a better way to govern for the entire world.

Yet, we have people today that not only ignore the lessons -- they are doing their level best to remove all traces of some of our Founders, simply because they lived in a time when slavery was accepted -- and those brave men did not dedicate their lives to eradicating it.

Our Founders were brilliant men who accomplished the near-impossible.

If new generations do not learn and internalize those lessons, there will come a time when the old problems will cycle back.

I have no faith that Generation Snowflake can accomplish what our Founders did.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

You have to remember that the Democrats are in charge of the education system, They don't teach that the founders were brilliant, they teach that they were terrorists and they we stole everything that we have from others.

They don't teach the constitution, or even how the Government is supposed to work. They don't even want the children to be able to read cursive writing, so they can't read the founding documents.

[Ethereal]

I disagree. We're talking about a worldview or an ideology that is a product of the rationalism of the European Enlightenment. Progressivism is distinctly modern precisely because it's a "core belief system" It's an approach to politics and society. It's a way of thinking about political and social life that you simply don't find in the past. There is a difference between some Roman administrator, for example, concocting a more efficient way of obtaining the money he needs and proposing that all social, political and economic institutions should be rationalized as a matter of course. The demand that all customs and traditions should be subject to the dictates of a disembodied reason (i.e. an abstract reason not tempered by historical experience) is a characteristically modern one.

Quite frankly, I can think of no major political philosophy that is more rational than communism and we all know what a disaster that was.

But aren't you operating under the assumption that they're actually sincere about the principles you articulated?

[Ethereal]

No! But what it can accomplish is.

You're a regular Thomas Jefferson.

[Ethereal]

Only certain people may kiss certain people.
Only certain people may marry certain people.
Only certain body parts must go in certain places, be they bathrooms or holes.


On a side note: only certain people may board space ships.

Libertarians are fine with people loving who they want.

Just fine.

[FindersKeepers]

Republicans= Regressive
Democrats= Progressive

If you have to live in the past, you'll not be able to dwell in the inevitable future. Look forward, not back. The "good ole days" weren't really that good.


In a sense you are correct -- it's best to look to the future -- but to do so without knowing basic lessons will cause you to repeat the errors of the past.

And, your labels are wrong.

The "progressive" movement is actually the most regressive, despite its fluffy name.

[MMC]

`
Actually. it's not alright. The high court need 9 justices to function. Justice is not being served by stalling judicial nominations.

Well, actually I said its alright that you went a bit off topic. Before I mentioned I wasn't a lawyer.

For myself.....I don't think we need 9 Judges on the SCOTUS. Right now its tied. Once Trump becomes President. Ginsburg is stepping down. So there is no need to pick one even after Trump wins the Election.

Although, I would be fine with just 5. Kind of like how many points are on our Stars with the Flag. There is no reason to give 4 others a life time job.

Which that needs to be changed to. No more lifetime appointments. No more free ride. As well as any Judge over 65 needs a Psych eval every 3 years.

This needs to be done with the Court of Appeals.....with all other Court of Appeals having a higher standard than that the 9th from out in California. Where they don't actually understand law and the Constitution. Laws of the Land. Natural Laws. Criminal Law or Civil Law, etc.

[MMC]

Good ol' Republicans want to decrease police and incarceration, spend less on war, allow people the freedom to love others how they and to control their own bodies, give minorities a voice. Wait... wrong party.


Good thing you caught yourself, as I was going to break out the Waterboarding tools. :grin:

[Common]

You're a regular Thomas Jefferson.


lol that guy man, he says hes 80 yrs old and he acts like a 20 yr old left wing dizzball on crack.

[MisterVeritis]

You're a regular Thomas Jefferson.
Or, more likely a constipated Thomas Jefferson.

[AeonPax]

Why not?
`
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the high court is tied, it leaves the most recent decision intact. That is not justice.

[Ethereal]

lol that guy man, he says hes 80 yrs old and he acts like a 20 yr old left wing dizzball on crack.

That's an insult to twenty-year-old crack heads.

[Ethereal]

Or, more likely a constipated Thomas Jefferson.

Even if you hit Thomas Jefferson in the head with a sledgehammer, he'd still be a hundred times smarter than AZ Jim.

[Chris]

`
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the high court is tied, it leaves the most recent decision intact. That is not justice.

Yes, SCOTUS issues a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's opinion. They recently issued this one: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf (.PDF).

Is that justice? I don't know.

[decedent]

Libertarians are fine with people loving who they want.

Just fine.

But they always vote Republican.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is not difficult in the vast majority of instances to determine original intent. Read the debates and what the Framers themselves had to say. Many of them wrote extensively about the Constitution and what the various articles and clauses mean. Madison can answer almost any questions you might have. So what? The Framers' political thinking was as primitive as their technological thinking--horse and buggy.

[MisterVeritis]

`
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the high court is tied, it leaves the most recent decision intact. That is not justice.
If it is unjust to not overturn a decision why have a supreme court at all? Just automatically overturn the decisions. Or use a coin toss. Since the supremes don't rigorously use the Constitution anymore a coin toss would be as effective.

[MisterVeritis]

So what? The Framers' political thinking was as primitive as their technological thinking--horse and buggy.
LOL.

Their thinking was quite sophisticated and remarkable.

[Ethereal]

But they always vote Republican.

Must be fun living in imagination-land.

How are the unicorns over there?

[The Sage of Main Street]

In a sense you are correct -- it's best to look to the future -- but to do so without knowing basic lessons will cause you to repeat the errors of the past.

And, your labels are wrong.

The "progressive" movement is actually the most regressive, despite its fluffy name. A decadent hereditary oligarchy controls where we are going and creates our delusion that time always moves forward. So the Progressives advocate for more rapid progress in moving down the wrong track.

[The Sage of Main Street]

LOL.

Their thinking was quite sophisticated and remarkable. So people say. That's what they're paid to say, brainwashing us into submitting to a secular political Bible and divinely inspired Fathers of that ideological church.

[MisterVeritis]

So people say. That's what they're paid to say, brainwashing us into submitting to a secular political Bible and divinely inspired Fathers of that ideological church.
I often wonder what other conversations are going on inside your head. No matter.

[AeonPax]

If it is unjust to not overturn a decision why have a supreme court at all? Just automatically overturn the decisions. Or use a coin toss. Since the supremes don't rigorously use the Constitution anymore a coin toss would be as effective.
`
Thank you for your well thought out, but wrong, opinion. I might exchange in a discussion on this but alas, my mind is elsewhere, at least for the moment. Maybe later.

[MisterVeritis]

If it is unjust to not overturn a decision why have a supreme court at all? Just automatically overturn the decisions. Or use a coin toss. Since the supremes don't rigorously use the Constitution anymore a coin toss would be as effective.

`
Thank you for your well thought out, but wrong, opinion. I might exchange in a discussion on this but alas, my mind is elsewhere, at least for the moment. Maybe later.
LOL.

The other benefit of a coin toss is that we would not have to pretend that the supremes were anything special.

[Chris]

They used to cast lots.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I often wonder what other conversations are going on inside your head. No matter. Nothing originates inside your mind. Your brains are a sponge soaking up the simplistic and self-serving sermons of the Establishment's hired blowhards.

[The Sage of Main Street]

They used to cast lots. Lost cats cast lots.

[MisterVeritis]

I often wonder what other conversations are going on inside your head. No matter.

Nothing originates inside your mind. Your brains are a sponge soaking up the simplistic and self-serving sermons of the Establishment's hired blowhards.
Do you see what I mean?

[The Sage of Main Street]

I often wonder what other conversations are going on inside your head. No matter.

Do you see what I mean? Which of their ventriloquists is using you as a dummy?

[MisterVeritis]

Which of their ventriloquists is using you as a dummy?
That was mildly humorous. I give it a four out of ten. Bravo.

[AeonPax]

If it is unjust to not overturn a decision why have a supreme court at all? Just automatically overturn the decisions. Or use a coin toss. Since the supremes don't rigorously use the Constitution anymore a coin toss would be as effective. LOL.The other benefit of a coin toss is that we would not have to pretend that the supremes were anything special.
`
Two wrongs make a right, so I guess you have a point.