|
| Posted by: sarge33rd
- [12554167] Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 00:49
In a letter to James Madison, dtd 6 Sep 1789, Mr Jefferson wrote:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.
link
The "they" Jefferson refers to, are "the living". If one is the "master of their own body" and may "govern it as they please", the surely if it please them, they may wed a same gender person? (Note: This would not allow for bestial marriage, as the beast is not human and thus is not entitled to human rights and considerations.) Further, if a woman then is pregnant, and terminating that pregnancy is, in her best judgment, in her best interest, then surely Mr Jefferson is granting her that authority.
And finally, the first sentence of this particular paragraph, would seem to indicate that the constitution itself, should be re-addressed every 19 years, and freely modified as needed. That the laws determined best by the last generation, can not be assumed to apply to the next. He goes on then, to say that the ability to rescind a law but failure to do so, can not be assumed to extend the law, since corruption among other cause, can preclude such rescission.
Should the political right, so fond of quoting and referring to the FFs, perhaps stop and contemplate a little more deeply just what the FFs actually said, vs what the right of today would like to think they meant? |
| | | 1 | Boldwin
ID: 40991420
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 01:51
|
But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government.
Then let no man or government deprive a person of life or property.
And take your sticky fingers off my stuff.
|
|
| | | 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 12:19
|
Perhaps B, you should read the entire letter. From the final pargraph:
It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; ..
|
|
| | | 3 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 16:11
|
Actually, Sarge, I do not think you can make the leap that Jefferson supported pro-choice or gay marriage from that letter (and to be honest, nor can you make the leap that he was against either from that letter).
But what you can say is this:
Jefferson recognized that people and societies change. He recognized the need for laws to be able to change with a changing society.
This letter in no way supports any particular political agenda as far as pro-choice/anti-abortion or gay rights/DOMA goes. But it does say, "If we as a society feel its time to change these laws then the fact that laws exist should not stop us from moving in a new direction."
|
|
| | | 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 16:17
|
I think Khahan, the argument could be made the Jefferson disagreed with the idea of legislating individual choices, but instead supporting leaving up TO the individual. In his time, the idea of same sex marriage, and/or abortion, would have been as alien I think, as the idea that the 2nd Amendment supported individual ownership of automatic weapons.
That said, I agree entirely that he saw the need to allow for future fluidity and recognition that "times change", just as they had changed from 1492 to 1789 when he penned this letter. However, the bolded sentence is I think, quite clear in its absolute support of individualism. (Bolded added by myself FTR)
|
|
| | | 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 16:19
|
oh and FTR, I meant to include a "?" in the header, but ran out of spaces for characters. there simply wasnt room FOR, the "?".
|
|
| | | 6 | Building 7
ID: 87592712
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:31
|
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
| | | 7 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:39
|
Which would seem B7, to be in line with what I am "extrapolating" from the above. The individual is in charge of themselves, and the government should infringe absolutely minimally in order to provide for societal peace and growth.
|
|
| | | 8 | CanadianHack
ID: 579471516
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:48
|
Who really cares what some long dead guy would have thought? Thomas Jefferson would have been in awe if he was shown a transister radio. He was a product of his time and in all likelihood would have become a different person if he lived in our time.
Trying to figure out what the founding fathers would have thought is futile. We can never know the answer with certainty and most people argue back and forth that they would have supported their pet position.
If I can conclude anything about what Thomas Jefferson thought, he would have been amazed to learn that an internet exists in the 12st century and that people on it spend their time discussing what he might have thought.
|
|
| | | 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:50
|
To a point CH, I can agree with you. But as American politics ebbs and flows, we often see the FFs referenced. I think a discussion therein, is warranted. Particularly, seeing as how the document they wrote, serves as the basis (combined with English law traditions) for our own societal laws.
|
|
| | | 10 | Tree
ID: 219541516
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:58
|
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
Nope. Jefferson didn't say that.
a significant number of quotes the American Right attributes to Jefferson weren't said by Jefferson at all. This one didn't appear in print until 1914, and was attributed in 1994.
We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations.
i call it meme politics, because there seems to be a fascination by Tea Party folks with this sort of thing.
but no, Thomas Jefferson didn't say what you just attributed to him.
|
|
| | | 11 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 18:46
|
But, making up quotes is fun.
"I like eating babies because they keep me regular so I don't soil my underwear."
-Rush Limbaugh
See? How can anyone support those baby-cannibalizing types? I just don't get it.
|
|
| | | 12 | Tree
ID: 219541516
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 18:54
|
But, making up quotes is fun.
i know you were being funny, but i don't think it's an issue of making things up as it is a combination of ignorance and lack of due diligence. (present company excluded, not trying to knock you at all B7.)
i think certain lies are told and re-told, and many people are either too stupid or too lazy to do their own research.
i also thing - as this colummn points out - many people simply don't care about honesty or the facts anymore. and i think the Republican party - more so than the Democrats - have caught onto this.
it's scary. pretty soon, facts won't matter at all. it seems they barely matter now.
|
|
| | | 13 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 18:59
|
Actually I think Obama gets caught in more lies on the trail this year than we've seen from previous Dem presidential candidates, including Obama in 2008. Maybe I'm just paying more attention than I was before.
|
|
| | | 14 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 19:21
|
"i know you were being funny, but i don't think it's an issue of making things up as it is a combination of ignorance and lack of due diligence."
Yes, but much like the Family Guy episode where they track down the Island Where Dirty Jokes Are Created, these memes do have to start somewhere in order to be propagated, and they're created by people interested in replacing the facts with a more favorable version of reality to their peculiar world view.
Probably in Karl Rove's garage, but, somewhere.
|
|
| | | 15 | CanadianHack
ID: 40620131
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 21:08
|
Sarge: To a point CH, I can agree with you. But as American politics ebbs and flows, we often see the FFs referenced. I think a discussion therein, is warranted. Particularly, seeing as how the document they wrote, serves as the basis (combined with English law traditions) for our own societal laws.
CH: The constant referencing of the founding fathers in the United States is a logical fallacy. It is an attempt to make an appeal to authority. The problem is the authority is so long dead that we have no way of knowing if that opinion cited would be the opinion of the authority in question were he around today.
In Jefferson's case, I am sure we all hope that he is smart enough that some of his opinions over 200 years ago would be different today. Particularly opinions he had regarding slavery and women's sufferage. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should bring back slavery because that is the way the founding fathers wanted it. They clearly did want it that way under the circumstances of the time and most of us believe they would not want it under vtoday's circumstances. So in some cases we don't care what the founding fathers originally wanted and assume they wouldn't want it anymore.
It is special pleading to believe that the founding fathers wishes are important to some constitutional issues (like abortion and gay marriage here) and not others like slavery.
How do we know what Thomas Jefferson would think? We don't. Even if he clearly said something on the issue in his lifetime that is well documented (and that is rare) and never contradicted it there is a reasonable chane he would not have imagined today's circumstances and would thus have a different opinion. The fact is we cannot know relaibly what Thomas Jefferson would . at best we can make a wild guess (which seems to align itself with one's preconcieved ideas on the topic almost exactly) and in the US today that wild guess passes for a legitimate legal argument in the Supreme Court. a first year college student taking a logic class should be able to see the flaws in this attempt at logic.
The person I know best in the world and spend the most time with is my wife. That said I rarely know what she is thinking about a given subject. I have never met Thomas Jefferson and neither has anyone else alive today and yet many people go around claiming they know what he would say about a given topic. It doesn't pass any common sense test. Its a logical fallacy that is purported to be a reasoned argument even if Jefferson really believes what you say he believes and odds are he doesn't believe it.
|
|
| | | 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 21:18
|
An appeal to authority isn't automatically a fallacy, CH. And trying to figure out what one of the Founding Fathers thought about certain issues helps clarify ways to look at our Constitution (which, as you might understand, is more than just an opinion).
Surely the conservative take on the Founding Fathers is often simply wrong--a way present a monolithic set of handed down authority to back up their set of specific policy ideas. And rebutting this isn't an example of navel gazing opinion-gathering. It is a way to make what the Founding Fathers did appear in a better light
|
|
| | | 17 | CanadianHack
ID: 40620131
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 21:25
|
It is a fallacy to say we should do X because authority Y says we should. It may be that authority Y has some reason to think that way and those reasons make a valid argument but the fact that Y thinks them does not make it any more or less valid.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 21:35
|
That's not the fallacy, CH. A fallacious appeal to authority has to do when one of two (or both) things happen: The "authority" turns out not to be an expert in the area being discussed, or the conclusion cannot be reached by other means.
A doctor tells you to take certain medicine to get better is not a fallacy. Asking Rush Limbaugh for advice on women is. I'll leave it to you to determine which portion of the argument fails in the second example. :)
|
|
| | | 19 | CanadianHack
ID: 40620131
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 22:49
|
It is a fallacy if you take a certain medicine only because a doctor told you to and not because of any logical reason. You are implying that a doctor should know something about the topic and therefore there is likely a reason behind it. That is likely true but the valid logical reason to take the medicine is not because the doctor says so, it is because of the reasons behind the doctor making that recommendation.
|
|
| | | 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 22:59
|
and one of the primary authors of the Constitution, would not be worth discussing, to try and better grasp that document? Just as your doctor has reasons for his/her suggestions and it is in our own best interest to understand them why would that exact same logic not apply to Jefferson's thoughts/writings?
|
|
| | | 21 | CanadianHack
ID: 40620131
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 23:07
|
It may be a question of historical interest to see what Thomas Jefferson (or Abe Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower or Babe Ruth or anyone else) thought of the constitution - but it rarely has a clear answer. It certainly isn't a valid logical reason to do something regarding the constitution today if we can somehow divine that Thomas Jefferson had a given opinion. The logic behind that opinion might stand up to scrutiny but the fact it is Thomas Jefferson who produced that logic and not some other person does not make the point any more or less valid.
All of this assumes we can actually figure out what Jefferson would think given the question in today's context - and I think its clear that at best we can take a wild guess and by the nature of a guess it has little value to a discussion about what to do today.
|
|
| | | 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 23:27
|
perhaps in an ideal world, or in a vacuum, you would be correct. Alas, we live in neither.
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 419151614
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 15:34
|
That said I rarely know what she is thinking about a given subject. CH
Invalid point as applied to TJ.
Women are a mystery even to themselves. Men are by comparison simple, direct and straightforward.
It is simply special pleading to pretend the FF are a mystery. They expounded with great precision extensively on just about every dustmite of minutia attached to their political beliefs.
Further Thomas Jefferson was a lesser light subordinate to the true father of ths constitution, James Madison. Better to read the Federalist papers, a third of which were written by James Madison explaining and defending every twist and turn he felt needed defending or exposition.
This isn't like interpreting a soap opera. [tho the implications of TJ's private life read into the constitutional language might lead you to think otherwise] They said what they meant and meant what they said.
|
|
| | | 24 | Mith
ID: 98342014
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 15:55
|
I agree with B that it isn't too hard to determine how many of the FFs felt about numerous topics. I'll leave be the mysogyny portion of the comment.
But I agree with CH that only so much can be derived from what even great men said in those days without the benefit of considering the past two centuries of technological, political and social development.
Further, any claim that a particular idea was supported by "the Founding Fathers" in a general sense should always be viewed with the highest skepticism. The Constitution they eventually arrived at (on their second attempt) was nothing if not a clinic on political compromise. They fought bitterly against one another to see their opinions about what this country should be win the day - and the centuries.
|
|
| | | 25 | Tree
ID: 35951615
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 16:12
|
Women are a mystery even to themselves. Men are by comparison simple, direct and straightforward.
at least you're consistent. this is in line with your belief that a woman can prevent pregnancy after being raped by simply not wanting to be pregnant.
|
|
| | | 26 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 16:54
|
(Note: This would not allow for bestial marriage, as the beast is not human and thus is not entitled to human rights and considerations.)
Actually I don't think it does, not only there, but it could be argued that Jefferson own actions support this, considering he had child with a slave at time when slaves, while "human" or "animal"(not sure what term they would use) did not have any rights just like an animal. Which I guess means he is right times change and secondly it would mean that his words are not important. I think this means this thread would be what is ex falso quodlibet or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet.
|
|
| | | 27 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 17:01
|
slaves were omitted from the Constitution, it is widely believed, because the FF couldnt get it to pass muster if they freed them. They trusted, it would be addressed in the not terribly distant future, and in fact it was, some 80 years later.
I think your latin is misplaced.
|
|
| | | 28 | Building 7
ID: 87592712
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 17:23
|
Article 5 - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
........................
The Founding Fathers knew the Constitution would need changes, so they inserted Article V. That Thomas Jefferson could not imagine an internet is irrelevant. Article V can handle any change that comes along.
|
|
| | | 29 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 17:30
|
and that claim B7, runs in direct contradiction to what he said in the letter to Madison, in saying that failing to rescind shouldnt be construed as meaning to renew. He goes on, and provides a number of reasons which could preclude an assembly from rescinding. It would logically follow, that those same impediments could preclude assemblage for purposes of amending.
|
|
| | | 30 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 17:41
|
Article V can handle any change that comes along.
You do remember that when the Founding Fathers came up with Article 5, all of them were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and the number of states was very few(initially 13).
Now there are 50 states including one in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, as well as a vast diversity of races, religions, cultures, subcultures, national origins and even lifestyles that come into play.
The possibility of a constitutional amendment being ratified these days is nil. There have been two the past 40 years, and the political schisms are only increasing.
|
|
| | | 31 | Boldwin
ID: 419151614
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 18:52
|
Women are a mystery even to themselves.
This is not misogyny. That was my wife's explanation to me why women were so difficult to understand. That was her looking into her soul and discovering she didn't even understand what was going on internally, there was no way on earth any man could.
Viva la difference and I so very much mean that.
I'd explain why this is a fact but very few of you could handle the truth.
|
|
| | | 32 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 22:12
|
I agree. Your obviously vast expertise in this matter is definitely too much for this forum to handle and better left unexplained here.
|
|
| | | 33 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 22:22
|
Surely there are better debaters elsewhere who could actually handle that "truth?"
|
|
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621
Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 22:25
|
I'll explain it scientifically.
|
|
| | | 35 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Sat, Oct 20, 2012, 08:55
|
Screw Thomas Jefferson. I'm more interested in what Chris Kluwe thinks.
Am I the last person to have heard of this guy?
Just a small piece of this guys mind as he rips Burns a new one:
"Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy f*cking sh*tballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").
|
|
|
|