feed icon

The Founding Fathers Weren’t That Special

By Kleinheider Posted on November 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm

So says Sean Braisted:

I know, its scary to think, considering some of the loons in Congress, but its the truth. The founders are deified because they were at the right place and right time, their words are profound because of the longevity of their actions.

The danger with imbuing the constitution with some sort of supernatural powers is that it leads to religion, and when you have religion you get radical fundamentalists who have a very skewed and deranged interpretation of society, an interpretation that can lead in many cases throughout history, to violence.

permalink

Comments

33 Responses to “The Founding Fathers Weren’t That Special”

  1. black community writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:15 pm

    True, so true. Go piece Sean.

  2. black community writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:15 pm

    I meant “good” piece….

  3. SayUncle writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:16 pm

    Who’s saying treat it like religion? Let’s start by treating it like the law.

  4. Matthew Hurtt writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:20 pm

    Insert “Barack Obama” anywhere into this, and it reads like the 2008 election.

  5. black community writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:29 pm

    Yeah it sure does M.Hurtt… sigh

  6. The OG Ben writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:31 pm

    A major source of the power of “The Founding Fathers” is that they weren’t special. That’s the point. This is supposed to be a government of folks for folks.

    As for Matthew’s comment, I’ve never seen Obama supporters worshipping the man. I have, however, seen a lot of conservatives claiming that Obama supporters worship him. It’s part of that sore loser chapped ass syndrome you have.

  7. Sean Braisted writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:33 pm

    Who’s saying treat it like religion?

    The woman in the video I was talking about who said the Constitution is a “sacred” document.

  8. black community writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:34 pm

    The whole, “I want to go back to the founding father’s” interpretation of the constitution rings hollow in 2009. Nobody is trying to amend the 2nd amendment. or the 10th amendment for that matter. Just a bunch of scared, misinformed people, who are taking advice from entertainers such as Rush, Glenn and Hannity. These people are about “RATINGS” NOT SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE.

  9. black community writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:41 pm

    The Constitution as a “sacred” document… Yes it is an important and vital document formatted at the birth of our nation. Yet that “Sacred” document originally concluded that A.A were to be considered 3/5 of a human being with no property rights. Women had no property right and in some cases had fewer rights than A.A slaves. Poor with men (classism) who did not own property had no voting rights either. I’m not bashing the Constitution, but I’m not standing in the door way with my pocket version shedding tears of freedom either. It has been interpreted from the supreme court many times as a “living, breathing document.” (constitutional law 101)

  10. SayUncle writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:42 pm

    Sean, Spoken like the sacred truth. So, am I being religious now?

  11. Sean Braisted writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:51 pm

    If you are implying infallibility, yes.

  12. Sean Braisted writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:53 pm

    Btw, context matters…in the context of this woman’s rant, she certainly gave off what could be considered to be religious fervor when talking about the sacred document that is the constitution…but no, just saying the word “sacred” does not in and of itself make one “religious”.

  13. SayUncle writes
    November 3rd, 2009 3:55 pm

    You are aware the words have multiple meanings and can also be used figuratively?

  14. Davy writes
    November 3rd, 2009 4:33 pm

    “Btw, context matters…in the context of this woman’s rant, she certainly gave off what could be considered to be religious fervor when talking about the sacred document that is the constitution…but no, just saying the word “sacred” does not in and of itself make one “religious”.”

    Zealots are a dime-a-dozen.

    The town-brawlers are pretty much seen at any high school football games on Friday night or college football games.

    Why?

    Same reason why kids ride roller coasters: people like to be scared and angered, because it gives them a rush.

  15. Clayton Farlow writes
    November 3rd, 2009 4:48 pm

    I can’t wait until Sean decides to run for public office. While he may deny the desire to do so today, nobody that loves to hear himself bloviate as much as he does can resist the mother of all ego-feeds forever. All the little hipster wannabes will come out to support their progressive hero, but all that hope will fade to bitter disillusionment as all the stupid shit he has written over all the many years comes to light. The implosion will be epic in proportion. Unless it’s just overlooked in what will certainly be a vast sea of stupid, this post will be a contributor to that implosion. I can’t even begin to fathom the hubris and pure historical ignorance it takes to suggest George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were simply “in the right place at the right time.”

  16. Sean Braisted writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:28 pm

    You’d be amazed at how little I desire the chance to spend the rest of my life having to entertain the rantings of lunatics who think an attempt to change the laws so that your insurance policy actually means something when you are sick is an example of “tyranny”.

    And I’m well aware that much of what I’ve written would preclude me from ever getting elected to office in the State of Tennessee, but somehow I doubt this post would be in the top ten.

  17. TNVolunteer73 writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:36 pm

    Our founding fathers were extraordinary.

    They put their lives, property on the line to create this nation.

    If they had lost they would have been hanged.

  18. JerryJ writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:37 pm

    Remember when the founding fathers said that some people counted only as 3/5ths of a person? And that the Vice President would be the person who lost the presidential election to the President? And that the Senate wouldn’t be elected by voters? And that women couldn’t vote?

    And then they also were smart and said “hey crazy-bots, this thing isn’t perfect, and we know it so PUHLEASE fix it up some! Whenever you want to.” And then some people were like, “let’s fix it NOW before we even pass the thing.” And my teacher in civics called that the bill of rights.

    AND THEN there were some people who were like “okay, let’s fix it some more and let non white people vote and stuff.” But before that someone was like “hey, everyone let’s make the Senate elected directly by people!” And then some people probably walked up to folks in a parking lot and yelled at them saying “BUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS!!!!!!!!”

    The constitution isn’t sacred, the fact that our democracy has the ability to accept and/or change the document is what is. Oh yeah, and they put that IN the constitution.

  19. TNVolunteer73 writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:40 pm

    Black Community and you should give Great thanks to the 600,000 Whites that fought in the name of that same constitution, so A.A.s could have the freedom they know have.

    My Great Great Grandfather was a slave. and was Given his Freedom by a man named Robert E. Lee in 1855. Who said it was an abomination for one man to own another.

    Lee’s family worked to get the Amendment that ended slavery passed and ratified by the states.

  20. JerryJ writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:41 pm

    And the answer to how they have the power to do stuff like medicare:

    “The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

    and then

    “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

    The Constitution is AWESOME when you read it and don’t just use it as a prop.

  21. TNVolunteer73 writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:42 pm

    Jerry and they made the Constitution so it could be changed and undo everything that could not be done in 1791.

  22. JerryJ writes
    November 3rd, 2009 5:45 pm

    ROBERT E. LEE’S FAMILY VIOLATED THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY WANTING TO AMEND IT! Someone needs to get this internet camera lady over there to make sure they gets what is coming to him!!

    … oh and Robert E. Lee isn’t a founding father. He almost was. But just not for the U.S.

  23. Mark Rogers writes
    November 3rd, 2009 6:03 pm

    Sean,

    You may well be correct that the Constitution is not a ‘Sacred Document.’ But the Framers of the Constitution were not ordinary men. Or, being aware of the importance of what they were doing, they rose above their petty interests to achieve something great that individually they could not have achieved.

    Either way, it is really tiresome to hear them bashed for not being creatures of our time and values. They could only work within the cultural parameters of their time. The Framers were not perfect but they were wise enough to create a document that was strong and flexible. Hence they accepted (some grudgingly) slavery and could not envision giving women the right to vote. But they also included a process for amending the Constitution that was difficult but by no means impossible.

    As children of the Scottish Enlightenment, they did pretty damned well Consider, in contrast, what the children of the French Enlightenment achieved post-1789 (the year we adopted the Constitution). Beheadings, arrest based on birth, an effort to destroy the very culture that came before.

    Black Community,

    I am certain that the defenders of Dredd Scott vs Sanford and Plessy vs Ferguson said too. Amendments give the Constitution ‘life.’ And they were wrong then too. It should also be mentioned that the greatest threat to the Court and the Constitution came from FDR not Richard Nixon.

  24. Sean Braisted writes
    November 3rd, 2009 6:24 pm

    Either way, it is really tiresome to hear them bashed for not being creatures of our time and values. They could only work within the cultural parameters of their time.

    Exactamundo. I think Thomas Jefferson was a great man (note, that doesn’t mean we don’t have great men and women in this day and age), even though he owned slaves…a practice that would be considered abhorrent today. But its that very fact, that we have to live and work within the parameters of our time, that I don’t obsess about what the Founders may or may not have wanted. Of course they wouldn’t see a need for a national health care policy…what would it be, free leeches for all?

  25. Mark Rogers writes
    November 3rd, 2009 6:39 pm

    Sean,

    There is a difference between not worrying about what the Framers wanted in terms of goals and disregarding the meaning of the Constitution.

    For example, do you think that when Madison and friends were scribbling away that they used ‘press’ to mean ‘news media?’ No. They were talking about the Right to print opinions. ‘Press’ develops a different meaning later.

    Words in law need to be specific.

  26. Bill Hobbs writes
    November 3rd, 2009 7:20 pm

    You are exactly right, Mark. The freedom of “the press” referred to, wait for it… the printing press. Today, we use the word “press” to refer to the news media, but the “news media” as we know it today did not exist in the 1700s.

    The meaning of “the press” in the constitution today would encompass such things as printing presses, broadcast equipment, websites (and the means to publish them), etc…

    The “free press” rights of the First Amendment are the rights of the people - all people - to voice their opinion, to publish their thoughts, to write books, etc… It is NOT a special set of rights reserved for the professional news media, which is why legislative proposals that carve out special privileges for professional media (such as shield laws, for example) but doesn’t give ALL Americans the same protections, are a gross violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.

    Sadly, some believe the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” is meant for the news media only, though the other four freedoms in the First Amendment are broadly understood to apply to all Americans, not just a single profession. No one, for example, believes the freedom of religion is only for the professional clergy or that the freedom of speech is only for people who make their living giving speeches.

  27. Freddie O'Connell writes
    November 3rd, 2009 8:24 pm

    Did Bill Hobbs just depart from strict constructionism?

  28. Mark Rogers writes
    November 3rd, 2009 8:51 pm

    Freddie,

    Not at all.

    Bill just made an eloquent case for Original Intent. That, as you may know, is the radical theory that if you want the Constitution to mean something different, you amend it rather than redefining it to meet your personal opinions.

  29. Donna Locke writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:43 pm

    I believe the founding fathers were guided, but by what, I couldn’t say. Perhaps the United States was created by and in response to the future, in the place in mind where all time meets.

  30. V writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:46 pm

    I’M just saying that,if we held to the constitution we would not have a federal reserve and would not need gov. intervention for a host of inflationary problems in the first place.I think mr.paul is right in this , but can the system revert back to gold and no victory tax . these are the real causes of our problems. to much big gov, big brother and not enough good men. Its funny how hollywad always has a “you can’t handle the truth’ movie to smash brain everybody into being observers instead of doers.no one can stand up without fear of being slapped down by intepreters of the constitution.I’m tired of seeing what is right but non seems to know how to peform that which is right. the spirit is willing but our flesh is weak?will the law do it ? no ! no because you cannot legislate goodness. it will have to be us!!! following the lead of the men who knew and belived in a law giver ..~ “but if they turn away i will give them laws that are not good and misguide them” so methinks that the constitution is not the problem , its the blinded or if you will, the dimmed down who are reading it. Get back to believing in the only God ,like the founding fathers did,then you might be saved from the bad law making consequences were soon going to have to live with. ” I would obedience rather than sacrifice”

  31. Jay D writes
    November 3rd, 2009 10:58 pm

    If Republicans were REALLY concerned about small federal government, they’d be petitioning for a return to the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION… you know, that little document that got overridden by a Constitution that was drafted mostly by men who were not even in Congress at the time and is the reason we have a strong federal government.

    Sigh. Of course it’s not really about principles. If it were about principles, the Republicans would actually act on them.

  32. Mark Rogers writes
    November 3rd, 2009 11:14 pm

    Jay D.,

    I am really sorry but that is probably the silliest argument made on Post Politics in a good while.

    The Articles didn’t work. There are many better ways to reduce the size of government that would not bring the Nation to a screeching halt.

  33. Jay D writes
    November 3rd, 2009 11:30 pm

    What’s silly is that you call it a silly argument and make a broad generalization that doesn’t actually refute it with any proof. To say the articles didn’t work? There were plenty who thought the articles worked, like Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and the State of RI (all of whom refused to support the Constitution).

    What’s even sillier on your part is that I was being sarcastic… you know, poking fun at Republican rhetoric, suggesting that they might as well take it to the next level. Because that’s all it is, rhetoric. The Republicans aren’t going to return to the bare bones of Constitutional principles or the foundation of the Founding Fathers (another question, uhm, which ones???) anymore than they’re going to introduce legislation in Congress to nullify the Constitution to return to the Articles.

Leave a Reply




Partly Cloudy

The Collective

The Latest from NashvillePost.com

Archives