What Philosophy Did The Fathers Use As A Basis For Constitutional Rights?

I haven't read the link yet but Locke and Montesquieu were the two largest influences on the Founding Fathers. The idea of individual rights balanced with the needs of the commons and then the separation of powers is fundamental to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers views were also shaped by the English Civil War and that is another reason why the Constitution isn't as much as a democratic document that many would like it to be. One of the ironies of the American Revolution is while the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries many of them were uncomfortable of the idea of revolution.

Consider that simultaneously as the US Constitution was being ratified the French Revolution was going on and the excesses of that influenced the adopting of the US Constitution.

 

You don't even understand how government health insurance works or why it's important so you should probably step away from more complicated concepts before you hurt yourself.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution

 

Wrong!

Life - from those that continously massacred and killed Indians and slaves for their own purpose and benefit?
Liberty - from slave owners?
Property - from people that forcibly took land from the indigenous occupants?

The true philosophy was simply how to have a few rich white men hold on to power without calling themselves royalty or nobility.

 

"The Ninth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. It says that all the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. In other words, the rights of the people are not limited to just the rights listed in the Constitution."

 

I read the piece and it's not a bad primer. I would say while Rousseau was certainly known to the Founding Fathers I don't think he was as much as an influence on them. The Founding Fathers certainly weren't monolithic and there was a lot of disagreement among them particularly regarding democracy. Rousseau's thoughts had a lot more influence on the French Revolution and as noted in my previous posts a lot of Americans were horrified by what they saw in the French Revolution.

A contemporary of Rousseau was Edmund Burke who was leery of democracy and likely had an influence on the Founding Fathers.

From what I remember there was a lot of debate regarding including "Life, Liberty and Property" as fundamental rights in the Declaration of Independence. While that was the direct language from Locke the feeling was that if that was included that could end up meaning that the new US government composed of the states could end up being forced to provide property to it's citizens. That was something they didn't think could work so settled on "pursuit of happiness" as nebulous fundamental right.

 

Also the Tenth Amendment was added to allow the states to take on powers not specifically delegated in the Constitution.

The reasoning for both those amendments was as a further check on the power of the US Federal government and both those amendments. In the history of the US both those amendments have a very mixed record of being followed.

 

We all recognize that a framework of thinking must exist and the backdrop of any discussion begins with the constitution. But how about this thought exercise. The world is dramatically different today. If we gathered the best scholars and policy makers today and had them craft a governing document and system of government from whole cloth, what would they come back with to address the issues of today? I don’t mean just the policy issues de jour, but I mean the framework of government as well.

so many concepts in the constitution and Bill of rights remain fundamental and would be unchanged? How would new founding fathers address the right to bear arms for example?

 

If it was me I would still recommend something closer to the US Constitution. I think Locke is absolutely right regarding balancing individual liberties with common good and that separation of powers as outlined by Montesquieu are the ways to best achieve that balance. With what we see in many parliamentary systems they are often unstable with governments frequently changing.

I think the nature of the states is a more complicated issues but in terms of decentralizing power for a country as large as the US I think it is important. For as much as people complain about the states protecting regional and minority power I think that is preferable compared to a centralized system where the Federal government dominates. I think having states with a strong say and a check on a federal government can protect local issues and power. For example CA has diverged from the Federal government in many ways regarding environmental protections and accessibility. Trump and other national Republicans frequently criticize CA but under federalism they can't do much about changing CA laws. If we had a stronger Federal government it's possible CA wouldn't have such strong laws and would be more in line with whatever the Federal government had. Also Trump's threat to withhold aid from blue states could be carried out if there weren't blue state senators and representatives wielding power.

 

Think about this for one second. If we didn’t have the right to bear arms we wouldn’t have short sleeved shirts.

 

What if property didn't exist?

 

It’s all property of the crown anyway. Elizabeth remembers and she does not forgive.

 

Black fathers don't have a philosophy that's why there are so many broken homes and poverty in the black community.

 

One of my fav principles is to 'begin with the end in mind'.

What you end up with is heavily dependent on what you are trying to achieve, and the success of your product can only be truly measured against what it was meant to achieve.

The original US Constitution was no meant to achieve democracy and that is why it has struggled and needed many amendments to try to do so

 

Timeshare companies faint

 

I don't want to offend anyone here BUT

I always have had this thought
It's extremely strange how americans treat their founding fathers constitution like it is a Bible.
Like anything written there should be set in stone and it is sacriledge to change it.

 

Correction - some americans, particularly those who think it gives them an advantage or are too ignorant to know better