Whether the issue is taxation or abortion, you're bound to get a lecture from right-wing pundits on "what the Founding Fathers would do." The implication is that they and they alone are qualified to interpret the thoughts and intentions of a group of indoor plumbing-challenged aristocrats from two hundred years ago. That such a notion is steeped in arrogance goes without saying. Then again, these are the same people who generally presume to know God's mind.

Typically, once they've claimed the Fathers (and every Iraq War hero that never criticized Bush), right-wing pundits will tell you that the Founding Fathers were essentially of one mind, united in their enlightened pursuit of truth and liberty while adamantly opposed to anything that even remotely smelled like a liberal idea. Someone should tell Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh that just because they share the same brain, that doesn't mean every other group of people does, too.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers disagreed with each other about as much as they disagreed with King George. Sarah Palin inadvertently let the cat out of the bag a few weeks ago in response to the Tucson massacre, when she referenced Founding politicians who "settled their differences with dueling pistols." Now, the Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr affair was an anomaly, but it is true that the Fathers were insanely competitive, and often as contemptuous of each other's ideas as Rush and Keith are today. They routinely attacked each through lengthy editorial screeds, using ancient Greek statesmen such as Cicero and Cato as aliases (similar to the fights you see in the modern blogosphere between "Liberal Reader" and "Republican Bad ***.")

Perhaps the main reason right-wing pundits don't want to acknowledge these conflicts is because they'd then have to admit that some of the Founders were (gasp) left-leaning. You don’t hear much about Alexander Hamilton outside of the dramatic way in which he died. He was never President, but he wrote two-thirds of the Federalist Papers, a primary source for interpreting the Constitution (Fox News's Roger Ailes is reportedly a big fan of the documents). He also was a very loud proponent of a strong, centralized federal government. (Imagine the rage from Fox News and the Tea Party if President Obama uttered such phrase today, however innocuously). Hamilton was also instrumental in creating the U.S. Mint, the Coast Guard and, most significantly, a standing federal army. His most vocal opponents, the ringleader of whom was Thomas Jefferson (a confessed agnostic, by the way), favored only state militias.

Imagine what the U.S. would look like today if the Jeffersonian view had prevailed. No U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Wouldn't you just love to see the look on the GOP's collective face if you told them they had maintain their global hegemony with the Georgia National Guard?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=91f_1296761288


just cause I tire of the 'founding fathers' being our reference for everything political and the accompanying implication that they were all of one mind regarding every issue we faced then and WOULD face in what was their unforseeable future,,,

The Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, were smarter than probably all of us put together. They intentionally wrote the Constitution with as much flexibility in it as possible, because they knew very well that they couldn't foresee everything that might happen in the next hundreds of years. This is why I tend to choke when people talk about "strict construction" of the Constitution. The founders expected and WANTED it to change with the times.

I'm pretty sure that almost all of the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the current state of politics in the US. After all, they didn't even want direct election of Senators, and I doubt they could have imagined the commercialization of politics by corporations, which didn't really exist in their time. Not to mention the idea that a corporation is a person! (To my mind, one of the greatest mistakes in American jurisprudence.)

I agree, they no doubt were 'smart',

but just not quite the infallible , incorrectible, human entity our political discussions sometimes make them out to be,,,

Just think all the men who signed the Deceleration of Independence. If the Colonists would of lost the war every single one would have been hanged. Each one risked the future of themselves for our Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights no longer exists.
Barry renounced them at the G20 summit.

We are hanging on by a thread. Still have a few rights.

Of course, they were plumber challenged......they didn't have plumbing. They did however build one hell of an out house that never needed a plunger, just emptying. Without television and radio, all they had to do was read. They were way smarter and less fallible. Also, because of their religious beliefs and faith were harder to buy.

I completely agree,,,

A few points of confusion:

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States. The people who signed it were NOT fighting for the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights wasn't written until 1789. The Declaration was signed in 1776. Our United States did not exist until the Constitution was ratified.

Our Founding Fathers were NOT less susceptible to being bought, and their claims of religious belief were NOT stronger than those made by their decedents. The difference between then and now is actually a part of the myths that the person who started this thread was talking about.

If you actually study documented and thoroughly vetted histories of our nation, you will learn (often to your disappointment or consternation) that almost all of the human problems we have with our modern politicians were present in those who came before as well. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans never get taught the depth of History that rises above a high school level, and most of them don't remember more than a tenth of that after graduation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

The Declaration of Independence was the foundation from which the United States was created. The Founding Fathers already had an idea of what would make us different from the English. The Bill of Rights is that all men have the these unalienable Rights he was talking about. Freedom of Speech etc. The Declaration is the foundation of his political philosophy, and the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

another point of interest for me

didnt some of the same men who framed the declaration of independence,,,,,own slaves , in spite of their 'political' stance that all men are created equal?

in todays climate, they would have been wripped apart for being either hypocrites or 'flip floppers'

Technically, slaveholders are still around.
The new slave is the Illegal.
Hussein won't make his Special Interest friends send them packing. And, he sues states that want to end slavery.
Imagine that.

except those slaves are making the CHOICE to be and are fighting to CONTINUE being,,,,,a slightly different scenario,,,

Only 12 of the 55 delegates owned slaves. So take the land from the Indians and call yourself Colonists lol. Also say Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness for rich white men who own land.

It matters not what the Illegals want.
Hussein has the power and authority to see Immigration Laws enforced.
Why ain't he doin' his job?

yes, and a full 12 presidents (after the founding of america) owned slaves,,, and that was in the SAME era the constitution was written and the country was founded

but centuries later, we assume and claim we have presidents who can or should be STRICTLY constitutional,,,they werent even strictly adhering to their own philosophies when they FOUNDED the country,,,

Not as if he doesn't have spare time on his hands.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/president-obama-sings-al-green-at-the-apollo-theater-20120120

It's ok. Free thinkers know the answer as to why he doesn't sic the hounds on pukes who hire Illegals.

How did this turn into an Obama-hatefest? I get so sick of this.

ORRRRR not,,,


deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes UP 70 percent

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/barack-obama/obama-says-deportation-criminals-70-percent-under-/