I'm still surprised at how many people are so concerned about what the
founders thought. These guys were smart, sure, but they had the
disadvantage of being 18th century thinkers. Common thought at the time
was that blacks were less than human beings, women were property, voting
was only for property owners, and duels were a proper way to deal with
insults. They also had little real knowledge about how a "democracy" or a
"representative republic" would work in America. The first try, the
Articles of Confederation, worked badly. It seems rational to use their
work and their design of the government as a foundation of our country but
to think that we have to be held to exactly what they wanted or thought
back then seems as crazy as believing the Bible has to be accepted in its
entirety as absolute truth. Wait a minute. I just thought about something.
The same people that want us to follow the founders to the letter are the
same people who think we should follow the Bible to the letter too (just
kidding). But it is true. It's the same people who want to follow the
founders just like they want to follow religion. Glenn Beck is the worst.
That guy wants to follow the constitution and the original intent of the
founders just like it's the Koran and the words of the Prophet. No wonder
the country is so screwed up with people like that having so much
influence.
Hawke
Well, Beck wants to follow the Constitution as he imagines it to be.g
Have you ever actually watched this guy's show? I do, and I really get a
kick out of him. He's a prime example of someone that doesn't have the
experience and education to really understand a subject but he thinks he
does, and so well that he's able to teach others. He likes to put two
and two together but he comes out with five and thinks it's the right
answer. It's amazing so many people watch him basically teach a class in
a subject where he's no better informed than the audience.
Real, originalist conservatism -- Edmund Burke conservatism -- has some
strengths, such as having some solid rocks of culture, values, law, and so
on, that we can stand upon for stability. That does NOT mean that they
thought nothing should ever change. They just thought that change should
always be suspect, and should proceed slowly.
I can't say that I see anything wrong with that thinking.
Taking that view of the Constitution is not a bad idea. It's the same idea
that Madison had (but which Jefferson definitely did not). We have the means
to amend our Constitution and it's been used dozens of times.
Yes, there is a means to amend it but it's so difficult that in over two
hundred years it's only happened less than 20 times and one was to
repeal another one. At this point I'd say it's next to impossible to amend.
What I find annoying is that most of those Constitutional "originalists" we
have today have never read the darned thing. Nor have they studied the
history surrounding it, except to cherry-pick select bits and pieces that
reinforce their notions of what the Constitution *ought* to be. They've
never read all 85 of the Federalist Papers, nor the anti-federalist papers
(also 85, depending upon how you count them), nor the records of debate in
the House over the Bill of Rights. Most of all, they haven't read the many
federal court cases that put the Constitution to the test, generally with
legal questions that aren't clearly answered in the Constitution.
The world is full of "experts" who don't really know what they believe
they do. What is funny is that they have their opinions but they are
uninformed or misinformed ones. If they actually had the education in
the subject like you described the odds are they would hold the opposite
opinion. It's like if you're uneducated you think one thing and if you
have an education you think the opposite, kind of like religion.
So they flounder around with an imagined Constitution, and little sense of
how it's been challenged by events that made it to court, or what doctrines
the courts have developed to deal with the many ambiguities and unwritten
questions in the document itself.
They live with a misunderstanding a lot like that of this guy:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/are...agines-c,2849/
Yeah, I saw that guy. Makes you wonder why the people who know so little
feel so compelled to share their ignorance with everyone else.
On another note, today on Book TV was a professor of economics from
M.I.T. named John Gruber. PH.d. in economics from Harvard, by the way,
and he was giving a presentation about the health care bill. Turns out
he is a big player in the legislation and advises Obama et al on the
issue. If you get the chance to see him on Book TV tomorrow I wouldn't
miss it. He explains how the whole change in health care works and why
it's got to be done. If you Google the guy you see he's absolutely top
echelon in his field. Check it out if you get the chance.
Hawke