If you could go back in time or bring the Founding Fathers to present day

[redirish28]

What parts of the constitution would you ask them to clarify or change or put into the Constitution?


Who would you like to speak to the Founding Fathers about the issues today?



I would like them to Clarify the 1st Amendment (especially religion--making sure these nut cases can't insist "America was founded on Christian values" 2nd Amendment. I would also ask them to make sure Corporations would NEVER (or could never be named a "human" so that the supreme court can't rule for Citizens United)

I would also make sure no one could be denied anything due to who they are or who they love and what they believe in.


I would make sure they had a chance to hear from Thomm Hartman and Jonathan Turley and even Michael Moore.

[rfranklin]

1. There is plenty of evidence for what they believed...

It's just that the wingnuts have their own alternate history and Constitution.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

[SomeGuynTexas]

2. Why do you need a time machine?

All you need is a pen and a blank page and you too can put into words thoughts and ideas you can understand and support. That is the power of the written word.

You just have to have the rest of the country to agree to ratify those thoughts into a Constitution. If you can, no need for a time machine. If you can't, then no need for a time machine either.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Don't need to. The founders were as explicit as needed.

Don't forget that if it was intended not to be a living document they would not have provided the option to make amendments to it.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Which "Founding Fathers?"

[Ezlivin]

6. The Christian Ones, silly

Not the Lost Tribe of Israel that was on this shore when they arrived.

Sheesh. Don't you read your Mormon history?

[redirish28]

10. You are right I should not have been so rude. Wonder if the "English" founding

fathers would have written protections in for the native americans?

[Statistical]

5. Honestly I think founding fathers would be shocked by our current (i.e last 80 years) govt.

The system then envisioned was a very limited govt. Small or no standing army. Most authority reserved by the states. Something closer to EU than our current govt.

They would take one look at the massive military complexes in VA and CA (which span hundreds of square miles) and probably have a heart attack. If they found out that the federal govt alone collect nearly 25% of aggregate output (GDP) in taxes and still has to borrow trillions for foreign entities they might get violent.

Honestly it would be downright cruel to show founding father how far away from their vision we strayed.

[WingDinger]

7. Original intent is lame, and moot. We do not ask Obama what he meant by HCR.

It is the legal language interpreted by the SC. We do not allow him to say, I meant to say thus and so. The very premise that we must ask long dead guys, plays into the Teafreaks claim that we should be as 1800

[redirish28]

11. Not really. Considering the foudning fathers did not want these

teafreaks to push this country back.


What the founding fathers believe is that what they did was lay the frame work for the government and they believed people smarter than they where would make the system better.


I know the founding fathers had fault and I still deeply respect these men more than the Teafreaks.

[leveymg]

8. Any Founding Father who foresaw what we've become would die of embarrassment; those

who made it back to the late 18th Century would, no doubt, turn Tory and dump this mess back in King George's lap.

[DebJ]

9. Bringing them back would be 'cruel and unusual punishment.'

Jefferson would likey suffer an immediate stroke. One of his greatest fears was corporate control, and don't even start on the freedom of religion..........

[treestar]

12. I would like them to clarify the spending for the general welfare clause

Wingnuts are certain that it means nothing and that the Constitution doesn't permit social programs and that the general welfare clause only allows spending for the enumerated powers. Though if so they could have just said spending as allowed in this Constitution.