Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Fortunately, we live in Canada and don't have to constantly debate "But what did John A. MacDonald REALLY mean?"
The appeal to "the founding" fathers as you often hear in the U.S. is a very intriguing yet eye-rolling notion to me...as if a group of fat 18th century men in powdered wigs are the infallible, be-all-end all arbiters of how society and laws should be defined for human society for all time.
The "founding fathers" were just a group of educated men, who themselves appealed to another ancient authority that they valued (the classics, Greek philisophy, the Roman Republic, etc.) in framing the instruments of their government and state.
The human instinct to appeal to some ancient, centuries old authority in order to justify his current beliefs and motivations is a strong one. You see the exact same thing in religious movements who are constantly trying to reclaim the perfection that the first century church was supposedly supposed to be, "it was never meant to be this way", etc. Or even Mel Gibson and his traditionalist Catholic Church trying to go back to the way the "perfected" version of what they believe ancient Catholicism achieved.
In reality, things were probably much more chaotic and more ill-defined and even unjust in ancient history. Civilization has made progress. Our institutions can learn from but have to stop blindly appealing to a romantized past to justify our current actions.
|
The notion isn't "what would Thomas Jefferson do?". The Idea of the constitution is to limit the Federal government so they don't eclipse the authority of the individual States and the people's individual rights. The Founders knew they weren't perfect so they offered a formula to change the Constitution as needed. In absence of any changes original intent should be considered and respected.