[wasrjoe]

Now, I'm not trying to troll or start a flame war here. I love firearms and think they are both great fun and useful tools. I believe people should be free to do what they please as long as it does not harm other people (of course defining "harm" is quite a task, but that's another thread... and/or millenium of philosophical debate). Further, I am a youngin', just old enough to buy rifles, and so I don't really know that much about the world. Right now it's all still pretty large, scary and impersonal.

With that said, I have a few questions about what appears to me to be Constitution and Founding Fathers worship. I think that most of the people who created this country were great men with noble ideas that work in theory and in the real world, and I think that the Constitution created the best form of government to date.

However, I do not think that the Constitution went far enough in establishing the freedoms that humans should be guaranteed. Slavery was not something that was outlawed by the Constitution, and women were not allowed to vote. Amendments to the Constitution have changed this, and have become part of the Constitution. However, I see many people saying that the Founding Fathers would be angry at this or that because of the infringement on our Constitution. I suppose this strikes me as odd because the makers of our Constitution, as brilliant as they were, did not view the freedom of black men and women as something pivotal.

What I am getting at is this: Why is there such a tendency to paint the Constitution and our Founding Fathers in such a perfect light? Why does "because it is Constitutional" appear to be a good enough argument for any proposition to many people on this forum? Why does it seem that for a lot of people here every political idea proposed must match up with what the Thomas Jefferson or George Washington once said? It seems to me that the idea of freedom that most of the people on this bulletin board is probably quite different than that of the men who wrote the Constitution.

Am I simply misunderstanding those of you who identify with what I have described? Am I looking at this all in an incorrect light? Am I misunderstanding the Founding Fathers or looking at them too much from today's perspective?

Any responses are appreciated, and I apologize for my writing style which I consider to be very clumsy.

[Jake]

I'd say that your looking at them too much from today's perspective. If your main problems lay with the aspects of women voting and slavery you have to remember to keep things in perspective to that period of history. The theory of women voting would have been a radical change from the accepted norms of the day. And at that time in history slavery was the norm not only in this country but a large part of the world.

The Founding Fathers did the best the could within the restraits of thier times and knowing that no one is perfect left the mechanisms to change the Constitution to reflect with the changing times. As such women now can vote and there is no more slavery.

[longrifleman]

Am I looking at this all in an incorrect light?

Not at all. Actually those are astute observations. One of the biggest problems any of us have in thinking about the founders is trying to keep their times in mind and maintain a proper perspective. Most of the founders were more liberty minded than the people around them so as a relative judgement they were ahead of their times. Slavery was a huge problem for the writers of the constitution. They basically just had to agree to disagree and pass the problem to future generations. See War of Scession.

Why does "because it is Constitutional" appear to be a good enough argument for any proposition to many people on this forum?
Many times its not. There are some VERY lively debates about what the const really says or should say. I think for many of us, the attraction is the concept of the rule of law itself. If it isn't written down then it isn't the rule of law. It's just an opinion.

Why is there such a tendency to paint the Constitution and our Founding Fathers in such a perfect light?

I think there is a need for a shared myth to keep the country unified(sorta.:confused: ) We don't have one religion, race, cultural heritage or language to serve as a glue. In the past this helped fufill this need. Today I'm not sure what is going to replace this. There is an intentional assault on the founders and I don't see anything coming along to replace this part of our heritage.

Any responses are appreciated, and I apologize for my writing style which I consider to be very clumsy.
Your writing style is a lot like mine. You have nothing to apologise for.:D

[thefitzvh]

the "constitution worship" is another manifestation of our (by our, I mean people who think like me) desire to have a government as close to "ideal" as possible.

The framers of the constitution, while not perfect, envisioned a government that would protect the people, serve the people, not RULE the people. IMHO, of course.

I think many gunnies point to the constitution a lot because it was written to protect the common man.

[M1911Owner]

From my point of view, I'm a Mormon, and we recognize these revelations about the Constitution:And again I (the Lord) say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Doctrine and Covenants, 101:76-80And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land... And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Doctrine and Covenants, 98:4-7In summary, we believe that the Constitution was written by men that the Lord raised up for that specific purpose. And that the Lord has ratified that Consitution, and has said that anything that is more or less than constitutional law cometh of evil.

So, Senator Hatch, probably Senator Craig (I think he's a member, but I'm not sure), and a few other congressmen from Utah and Idaho, do in fact believe that the Constitution is literally ordained of God.

But, then again, that's our doctrine, so YMMV. :)

[Standing Wolf]

Why does "because it is Constitutional" appear to be a good enough argument for any proposition to many people on this forum?

Partly because there are so many people who'd gladly throw away the Constitution and replace it with paper establishing a European-style socialist hell hole.

[Don Gwinn]

The Mormon religion venerates the Constitution as a creation of God himself?

That's kind of neat.

[Col. Mustard]

However, I do not think that the Constitution went far enough in establishing the freedoms that humans should be guaranteed. Slavery was not something that was outlawed by the Constitution, and women were not allowed to vote. Amendments to the Constitution have changed this, and have become part of the Constitution.

And this is part of the beauty of the Constitution. The Founders recognized that they could not change the world in one stroke of the pen, or by imposing the unilateral will of a Federal government on the States. So they created Article V of the Constitution, so that changes could be made as the occasion warranted.

However, I see many people saying that the Founding Fathers would be angry at this or that because of the infringement on our Constitution. I suppose this strikes me as odd because the makers of our Constitution, as brilliant as they were, did not view the freedom of black men and women as something pivotal.

The Constitution, as written, represented the best efforts at true freedom for the citizens of a new nation. The Founders cannot be blamed for not trying to force an issue (freedom for blacks) which 73 years later would be an issue in a war which would result in 1,000,000 American casualties; nor for an issue (women's suffrage) which eventually took 132 years to resolve. The Founders were attempting to create a nation, not a utopia.

The arguments about infringements on the Constitution stem from abuses of black-and-white provisions of the Constitution (see "equal protection" vs. "affirmative action"; or "assault weapons ban" vs. the Second Amendment).

What I am getting at is this: Why is there such a tendency to paint the Constitution and our Founding Fathers in such a perfect light? Why does "because it is Constitutional" appear to be a good enough argument for any proposition to many people on this forum?

The Constitution is (or, was) the cornerstone of our Government. In Article VI it says that it is The "Supreme Law of the land."

Why does it seem that for a lot of people here every political idea proposed must match up with what the Thomas Jefferson or George Washington once said? It seems to me that the idea of freedom that most of the people on this bulletin board is probably quite different than that of the men who wrote the Constitution.

Certainly, the thought processes of the Founding Fathers must be considered when attempting to discern the true meaning behind the words of the Constitution; hence, the ongoing relevance of The Federalist Papers. But their words, even, are not gospel. Jefferson wrote once, in a letter attempting to influence a political constituency, of a "wall of separation between Church and State"; words that have been terribly twisted out of context, and erroneously given as Constitutional authority for all sorts of abuses to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Am I simply misunderstanding those of you who identify with what I have described? Am I looking at this all in an incorrect light? Am I misunderstanding the Founding Fathers or looking at them too much from today's perspective?

Bingo.

[Phantom Warrior]

Part of the reason no substantial action was taken on slavery was the fact that the constitution actually had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states. If the writers of the Constitution had come down hard on slavery, it would have been next to impossible to get the Southern states, who depended more heavily on slavery, to throw their support between the Constitution. Given the fact that things weren't working out well under the Articles of the Confederation and that the war with England was only ten years or so in the past, compromises were made in the interest of establishing a working, centralized federal government. For more info you can check out this link (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution.html) to the National Archives.

[Art Eatman]

SFAIK, no other group of men put together a system which provided for so much liberty for so many people (even considering slavery and women's voting*), and included such a strong effort to restrain the powers of the central government.

Consider the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, wherein it is explained that the purpose of their inclusion is to restrain the State from abuse of its powers.

Our system is intended more as a set of controls of government, not of controls of The People. Folks who think in that manner are seen as head and shoulders above today's politicians...

Art

[M1911Owner]

However, I do not think that the Constitution went far enough in establishing the freedoms that humans should be guaranteed. Slavery was not something that was outlawed by the Constitution, and women were not allowed to vote. Amendments to the Constitution have changed this, and have become part of the Constitution. Actually,

1. The Constitution does address slavery, allowing the Congress to ban the importation of slaves after (IIRC) 1809. That was a difficult issue--If they had tried to immediately ban slavery, they never would have been able to get the southern states into the union. I have read that this was the only actual compromise in the Constitution.

2. The Constitution does not prohibit women from voting. Some of the states did, but not the Constitution.

[GigaBuist]

Well, Standing Wolf nailed it right smack dab on the head again.

M1911Owner also reminded us that the Constitution didn't prevent anybody from voting -- that issue was left up to the states. It took ammenedments to guarantee blacks and women the right to vote though -- and that ammendment process was provided for in the original Constitution.

With regards to the founding fathers behind holy bastions and perfect men, or rather the typical way we seem to view them now, that's certainly not true. They were smugglers, bootleggers, tax evaders, and technically traitors to their original country. Oh, they also held illegal arms if I'm not mistaken. They weren't BAD men, but the weren't exactly law abiding men. They just didn't agree with the law of the land so they stood up and did something about it and tried making a government that could never intrude on what they felt were inaliable rights.

Regarding the RKBA specifically, I highly doubt most members here read the 2nd ammendment one day and a light went on in their head. Rather, it's discovered over time (or taught from birth in some cases) that the RKBA is a natural or God given right. The 2A is important to us not because it grants us rights -- but because it absolutely limits the government's power to intrude upon it. Well, that's what it's SUPPOSED to do. So, we can point to that, and the Bill of Rights as a whole, and say to ourselves, "Yep, those buggers saw things pretty much the same way I see it. That whole Constitution thing looks like it was a pretty good idea!"

It's probably the longest body of legal text that pro-liberty people can actually stand up for and believe in. The rest of the reems and reems of laws that we have to deal with are intrusive and generally speaking not keeping in tune with the pro-liberty mindset.

One of these days I'll learn to be as terse and punctuated as Standing Wolf. Maybe.

[Clean97GTI]

Here is an excellent read (probably a repost) about what the 2nd amendment means in todays terminology. Perhaps this will help shed a different light on the discussion.
http://home.att.net/~superspy/translat.htm

[RealGun]

I found this to be an excellent piece of writing, but I guess I'm concerned where you are going with it. I think an essential answer is that if there is any worship, it is of idealism, the Constitution being the baseline for a whole system of ideals, itself having its own baseline.

Frankly though, if the Constitution did not support gun ownership, I suspect many interested in guns would have little respect for it. There certainly is a special interest element. On the other hand, gun ownership is often symbolic of or symptomatic of patriotism or a belief in personal freedom and self defense, both for oneself and for everyone else. It bothers me greatly that the new model for democracy proposed for other countries includes a ban on guns.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Constitution isn't remotely perfect. It's just, as the saying goes, better than what we have now.

You don't have to think the law is perfect, to think that it would be better if the government actually obeyed it.

[Ryder]

It's not document worship. It's freedom worship and the constitution is simply a bible.

[RealGun]

A test of reverence for the Constitution is ones reaction when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Constitution and against popular sentiment. If the outcome is not to ones liking, then a common reaction would be to attack the Supreme Court. It's mostly special interest with a desire to use the Court to impose ones personal standard on everyone else. When that fails, there will be a proposal to amend the Constitution.

The later amendments are not considered as sacred as the early ones.

Now, I am no fan of the Supreme Court, mind you, but I do abide by the rule of law and certainly expect that government will also.

I think it behooves the Supreme Court to manage its credibility beyond the legal profession. I am neither in favor of laws written by lawyers for lawyers nor of manipulating the judicial process or of reading plain enough language in favor of a desired political or social outcome.

[cloudkiller]

Years ago I had a discussion with a Hatian classmate. I said that the problem with a lot of other countries wasn't their lack of democracy, it was their lack of a constitution like ours.

He said that Haiti had a wonderful constitution! No one paid any attention to it.

That is an interesting point.

The reverence is critical. The problem is that often people try to connect the Constitution and the Founding Fathers with their own ideology. I have read Conservative Christian texbooks that uphold the founding fathers as almost saints, and make out early America to be some kind of Jerry Fallwell Utopia. Ironic, considering I went to school with a woman whose cousin had catalogued Ben Franklin's pornography collection, and was in graduate school with the Sally Hemmings DNA issue finally came to closure.

The people weren't saints. They were visionaries. Their ideals were far greater than their individual actions, and worthy of reverence.

[La Pistoletta]

A proper constitution needs not define how free the people is, only how un-free the government is.