Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
In hindsight what would the Founding Fathers change? >

In hindsight what would the Founding Fathers change?

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

In hindsight what would the Founding Fathers change?

Old 07-27-2021, 12:00 PM
  #1  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 277
Default In hindsight what would the Founding Fathers change?

Just a thought experiment.

If they were to suddenly appear and see the current state of our country, would they change anything? By "current state of our country", I'm not insinuating good or bad, I just mean when they see the results of their work, would they change anything?

Add term limits? Clarification on the 2nd Amendment?
lonestar50 is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 01:12 PM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 14,243
Default

They would remove the part of the 1st amendment that allows the press to be bold faced liars, which is most of what we gat today o the national scene.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 02:51 PM
  #3  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,155
Default

This is an intriguing question that deserves serious thought and answer. I'm on a break from work so can only post briefly and will add more later tonight. Since you mentioned term limits and 2nd amendment, I assume you are limiting this discussion to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you consider the incredible carnage, # killed, # of casualties, #'s whose lives and property were uprooted, etc. in the Civil War, I think the easy answer would have been to ban slavery like Jefferson wanted to in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence that was edited to remove any reference to slavery. Doing so would not have eliminated slavery which existed in just about every other country at the time but it would have saved our country from an inevitable civil war which many of the founders foresaw as happening eventually. Now back to work.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 03:36 PM
  #4  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 277
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
This is an intriguing question that deserves serious thought and answer. I'm on a break from work so can only post briefly and will add more later tonight. Since you mentioned term limits and 2nd amendment, I assume you are limiting this discussion to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you consider the incredible carnage, # killed, # of casualties, #'s whose lives and property were uprooted, etc. in the Civil War, I think the easy answer would have been to ban slavery like Jefferson wanted to in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence that was edited to remove any reference to slavery. Doing so would not have eliminated slavery which existed in just about every other country at the time but it would have saved our country from an inevitable civil war which many of the founders foresaw as happening eventually. Now back to work.
I guess you could look at it like the Founding Fathers wouldn't change anything. They have us the mechanisms to amend the Constitution of we so desire.

As far as term limits I think they viewed being a congressman as serving the country not as a 20-30 year appointment where you make as much money as you can. I really wish money was not as involved in politics as it is but the genie is out of the bottle on that one unfortunately.

And no I'm not limiting it Constitution and Bill of Rights. It can be anything.

Last edited by lonestar50; 07-27-2021 at 03:57 PM.
lonestar50 is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 05:24 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,669
Default

I guess you could look at it like the Founding Fathers wouldn't change anything.
??? Are you saying that CalHunter said they wouldn't have changed anything? Since you quoted him directly above your statement about the founders not changing anything, that's what it looks like your response is to his post. From what I read, it looks like he suggested the founders would have changed their position and the Constitution about slavery from the beginning. That would be a huge change.

I don't know if they would have added something about term limits or not. In the beginning, they wanted to make Washington a king for his life. Washington is the one who turned them down. With the benefit of 21st century hindsight, maybe they would have changed or instituted term limits. Still not sure about that. I think money was always in play from the beginning although not from corporations and special interest groups as we know them today. Back then, it was landowners. Today, farmers and ranchers have dwindling influence. I guess it's hard to say on that one also.
elkman30 is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 05:31 PM
  #6  
Giant Nontypical
 
C. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kountze, Texas
Posts: 5,127
Default

I think they would try to make it even more clear the Bill of Rights was for the people and against the central government. Obama lamented the fact that the Bill of Rights said what the government couldn't do instead of what it could or should do.
I think they would be appalled at how much power the central government is taking every day against the people and the States.

C. Davis
C. Davis is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 05:54 PM
  #7  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,719
Default

Originally Posted by lonestar50 View Post
Just a thought experiment.

If they were to suddenly appear and see the current state of our country, would they change anything? By "current state of our country", I'm not insinuating good or bad, I just mean when they see the results of their work, would they change anything?

Add term limits? Clarification on the 2nd Amendment?
itís not what they would change but what was changed and they warned us about over two hundred years ago.

The problems in America today all began when the 17th amendment was passed. The federalist papers explicitly stated that should both chambers of congress be decided in the same fashion, it would be a detriment to our liberty. Today, the Senate no lingers serves its purpose, representation of the state. The Senate has become nothing more than house members with six year terms. The states no longer have any say at the table.

Itís s longtime past due to repeal the 17th amendment and give power back to the states. The individual state legislatures should call for a convention of the states and that should be at the top of the agenda.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 08:50 PM
  #8  
Nontypical Buck
 
Lunkerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 2,497
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
itís not what they would change but what was changed and they warned us about over two hundred years ago.

The problems in America today all began when the 17th amendment was passed. The federalist papers explicitly stated that should both chambers of congress be decided in the same fashion, it would be a detriment to our liberty. Today, the Senate no lingers serves its purpose, representation of the state. The Senate has become nothing more than house members with six year terms. The states no longer have any say at the table.

Itís s longtime past due to repeal the 17th amendment and give power back to the states. The individual state legislatures should call for a convention of the states and that should be at the top of the agenda.
Damn... A rare time these days that FM and I agree...
Lunkerdog is offline  
Old 07-27-2021, 09:50 PM
  #9  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,155
Default

Elkman, I have no idea where lonestar was going with that since he sort of rambled along.

FM, you do post some of the most thought provoking statements in this forum, bar none. I'll admit I didn't know very much at all about the 17th amendment and am now reading about it in detail. Anything further that you'd care to share on it.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 07-28-2021, 03:43 AM
  #10  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,719
Default

Cal, itís somewhere around federalist 52 where they discussed how the representatives for the legislative branch should be selected and the warning should the selection for both chambers be the same.

The best example I can give you on just how dangerous this has became is Obamacare. When the Party Of Slavery Democrats forced Obamacare on the American people in the middle of the night while ignoring all the objections, Virginia was one of the first states to object and announced they would sue the federal government over Obamacare on unconstitutional grounds. Why is Virginia such an important example? Both Senators rejected the original duty of Senators in representing the needs of the state and instead voted for Obamacare. Had they done their duty, we wouldnít be saddled with that crappy legislation and now new welfare program.
Fieldmouse is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.