Compromise as the Constitution's Foundation
By David Brian Robertson.
HNN
03-11-13
http://hnn.us/articles/co...foundation

More Statist hokum in an attempt to justify endless government intrusion on persons and property. Compromise by definition requires giving something up; usually a freedom or property of some sort. I seriously doubt the Framers had any intention of creating a document that is constantly open to interpretation and I think this effort is well stated in the language of the Bill of Rights (which the author chooses to ignore) which incorporates terms such as "shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law...."

They did know very well, that language is an imperfect means of constructing a universally understood concept. It's not math. As a result of endless writes and re-writes, it was inevitable that ambiguous terms and phrases would make it into the Document. That was predominantly the purpose of attaching the Bill of Rights to the Document; to satisfy the most recalcitrant individuals, who never would have been appeased. The process had to end somewhere.

And as imperfect as they are, the Bill of Rights was an attempt to detail the birthright freedoms that no human being is ever "granted" by any government. As for the rest of the Constitution, the means to revise it or change it is detailed in Article V.

And contrary to flawed "interpretations" by political judges with an agenda or bent on preserving a power base, "make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are absolute. What part of "no" and "shall not" is open to compromise?

Thanks for sharing. I'm curious to read folk's take on this.

I have always wondered what the founders who wrote the constitution would think if they came back from the dead. Once they understood modern life, would they be changing the constitution to fit the times. And if they did promote changes what would the "oddjob"'s of the world have to say. How can you say they are wrong in changing what they wrote?

They would feel that they had given us a republic, but we lost it. This is after they became acclimated as well as before. Our founders were very much like Strom Thurman, segregationist. Racial integrity was the cornerstone of the constitution, because it was the cornerstone of the lives of the founders that wrote it. If our founders were here today, they would actually be considered terrorist and placed in Gitmo, or join their local skin head group. Doesn't really matter, I kind of agree with making everyone the same. Even the socialist plan is pretty appealing, since I could work a little less, and still get the same lifestyle as someone whom works more.

[This message has been edited by coffeedrunk (3/18/2013)]

All our founders were like Strom Thurmond?!? Son, you need to study yourself some history. The southerns may have been, Tom Jefferson may have been, but John Adams and many of the northerners were not.

T. Jefferson had a black offspring and even included his black mistress in his will as well as acknowledging his offspring if I remember correctly...His ancestor (black) is a member of the DAR now which I think is wonderful...There has been much controversy on this subject and history has argued it for years...but the following paragraph was taken from the wiki DAR link

As noted above in the requirements section, the DAR has recognized that a wide variety of people contributed to the war effort, and has broadened its guidelines to reflect that. As an example of such changes, in 2007 the DAR posthumously honored Mary Hemings Bell, a former slave of Thomas Jefferson at Monticello, as a "Patriot of the Revolution." During the war, Hemings and other household slaves had been taken by Jefferson to Richmond to work for him after he was elected as governor of Virginia. When the British invaded the city, they took Hemings and the other slaves at the governor's house as prisoner. The American government officials had escaped to Monticello and Charlottesville. Hemings and the other slaves were later released. Since Hemings Bell has been honored as a Patriot, all of her female descendants qualify for membership in the DAR.[19]

[This message has been edited by howdy (3/18/2013)]

coffeedrunk, are you a regular on missoulian.com? The name seems familiar.

I think the founders would tell us they intended the constitution to be a document to be molded to meet the needs of the populace.

In 1787 Mayer Amschel Rothschild was just starting to put his plan in effect to secure eventual global domination. The Founders had no idea that was going on. If they had, compromise would have been out the door.

"I think the founders would tell us they intended the constitution to be a document to be molded to meet the needs of the populace."

Then why did they write one with such a limited option to change it?

The point is, the option to change is there. And it has been changed. And interpreted. Because the world changes.

And the option to change should be difficult. We should not be able to change it at some whim or change in the direction of the wind of ideas! The requirements for change make reflection and contemplation manditory. "Think about what y'all are doing and the consequences of updates before you just do it!"

Remember Prohibition? Granted, I doubt if the Founder realized how BIG and US was going to become and how many of us there are, but they still were right. Can be changed but not easy to change.

I was going to mention that Eighteenth Amendment. But more as an example that, if wanting to ban something, going to such extremes to make it illegal doesn't work.