What in the world could you mean? They are jokes ATTRIBUTED to Jeff Foxworthy and they are knock-offs on his "You know you're a Redneck if...." pattern. What else could they be but jokes. Some may see a grain or more than a grain of truth in one of them or all of them but they are still just jokes. I watch Bill Maher's show every Friday it is on. I laugh at the jokes-- even the ones that I don't necessarily agree with politically. I posted them in the D&D because they are a dozen or more political jokes and the typical frenzy from the "back-stabbing cadre of Liberals" was sure to ensue. It has. :grin:
I don't think anyone's denying this. But far too often, 'The founders were geniuses' gets followed by 'and therefore we should do X because it's what they would have wanted.' What 'The Founders' (as though such a diverse group would have had a unified opinion about anything) would have wanted is mostly irrelevant. We should make our political decisions based on the context and needs of our time, not what we think some smart people in the 1700's would have wanted.
It's almost like you're trying to show that a forum for debate and discussion is doing debate and discussion whodathunk it
After 10 years as one of the proportionally few "conservatives" back here I know WELL what is coming if it doesn't fit the "party line."
This is a fine line and I am far from a Constitutional Originalist but since they are the Founders I think anytime we discuss the Constitution original intent should be recognized. To me the challenge is being true to the ideals expressed by the Founders while acknowledging the changing times.
Not to hijack this amazing thread, but why does original intent matter? Or, more to the heart of the matter, when examining the Constitution, what gives it authority over us? Excerpted from No Treason by Lysander Spooner Spoiler This is a great read for anyone. I can't recommend it enough. He makes an argument against the Constitution that both conservatives and liberals should be able to agree with. Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
.... just some jokes posted on FaceBook. Why would that need a link. It's not news. They were/are jokes.
Lysander Spooner must've missed the part in American History about the Constitutional Convention and the Ratification of the Constitution by the states. Anyway if he is arguing that it wasn't ratified like we would a formal legal contract consider though if there isn't a government what legal basis is there for contracts? The Constitution by definition is the defining document of our government which established the system of courts and everything else to enforce legal contracts.
Gotta start somewhere. I heard a math professor say onetime that all of math or some theory about math was predicated on the value of ZERO being undefined....
It is a contract, just of a different kind. By maintaining your membership in this club we call the United States, you're consenting to abide by the club's rules and requirements, one of which is that you recognize the authority of the Constitution. As a private citizen, you're perfectly free to relinquish your membership in this club at any time, although you lose a lot of benefits (including the right to live in our clubhouse) by doing so. Like all the other rules, the Constitution is something you've consented to live under.
Not much the government does makes sense to me either. Balanced Budget Amendment! Both parties don't really want it because they love wasting money on themselves and their friends and screwing their enemies. All with our money. Think about it. They will hold us accountable, but they won't be accountable. They work for us, but they have made us work for them. Contemporary America in not the vision of the Founders, and there are enough documents still available to prove it. "Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeaus corpus, those are principles that have guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation" Thomas Jefferson "No government is respectable which is not just. Without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no mere forms of government, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society. " Daniel Webster
While difficult and debatable, isn't the founder's intent kind of like the North Pole of governmental navigation?
This and slavery bothers me a lot about our foundations. The founders were wrong on both counts. The founding principles were right, but they weren't applied rightly (even now). Extensive reading of the early documents gives one the sense that at the time many were blinded to these issues. They didn't see their "settlement" as genocide, but it was the consequence. There was a mistaken notion of manifest destiny. I have always thought the Indians should have fought harder, resisted treaties (all broken), and stood their ground. Basically, they were "technologically" inferior and very divided. Ultimately, they couldn't resist the inevitable. It could happen again.
The Constitution is legitimate because the federal government - which was set up by the Constitution - says it is legitimate. Got it. What you speak of isn't a contract at all. Merely being born under a state does not mean I consent to it - I had no say in the matter. Just because I don't flee from it (only to live under another state) does not mean I consent to it. Let's say me and my buddies set up the Houston Protection Circuit. We provide personal protection from the bad guys... but we need money. So I come to your door and demand some cash. You say "No," I say "That's fine, but now you have to leave. Or be thrown in my jail." You agree to pay because you don't want to leave and you don't want me to throw you in jail (or worse). Does this mean you now fully consent to the Houston Protection Circuit, and its founding document me and my buddies came up with the day before? That very document said that you had to pay us. We didn't get your approval when creating the document, but that's not what matters: what matters is whether or not you're abiding by our arbitrary rules or not. If you are, then you consent to our existence. Of course, this is absurb. But only because you don't give divine status to the founding document of the Houston Protection Circuit like you do the Constitution. Remember, society precedes the state. The state's sustenance is society, and as such it needs society to live - not the other way around.
