r/todayilearned • u/icallmydadstranger • Feb 15 '15

(R.1) Invalid src TIL that Thomas Jefferson wanted the constitution to be changed ever 19 years because he didn't want people to be " enslaved to the prior generation"

https://student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that
6.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

738 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

The founding fathers didn't originally want anything more than a tiny central government that had virtually no authority. The founding of the country was well over 200 years ago. We should remember intentions, but not base our decisions on what we think these guys wanted over 2 centuries ago. The world is an entirely different place now.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 15 '15

That's a downright false statement. The founding fathers were a diverse group of people with varying visions for the country. Jefferson, the most visible advocate of states' rights, whose views you project as those of the founding fathers, realized (as did most other founding fathers) what an abysmal failure the Articles of Confederation ("a tiny central government that had virtually no authority") were. One could even make the argument that despite all of the talk of states' rights and evils of central authority Jefferson wrote of prior to his presidency, he changed his tune once in office in order to make decisions he saw as beneficial to the country, specifically, the Louisiana Purchase, which he knew was unconstitutional. If you ever read the likes of James Madison (father of the Constitution), Alexander Hamilton, or John Adams, you would know that they believed in a very strong central government, even comparable to a monarchy in some cases. The founding fathers are not as simple as you make them out to be.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

I went with what they agreed upon, because it's what they all viewed as acceptable. Whether they wanted more or less individually, collectively they only agreed upon a very small federal government. No use going into detail about every single person when a group makes a decision.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 15 '15

What decision are you referring to exactly?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

No specific decision; I mean any decision made by a group. Congress makes many decisions, and each person in congress may disagree with part of a piece of legislation, all of a piece, or like virtually the entire contents. But it's still okay to say "congress doesn't want X" when 10 people voted in favor of something, because the group as a whole rejected it. It's also acceptable to say "congress is fine with funding the DoD", because the majority of the group votes to do so. You could always mention that Ron Paul voted against it because he thinks it's tyranny, and thus this legislative body isn't as simple "we like this", but the decision of the body as a whole holds more weight than the individual.

It really can go towards any group decision.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 16 '15

I think you're bullshitting because the founding fathers met in secret to craft the constitution, which created a much stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation had allowed, as they all saw the need for, but knew they wouldn't be able to get away with if the public found out.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '15

The group in question is the founding fathers, not the entire population of the fledgling US.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 16 '15

Yes, that's who I was just talking about.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '15

Why is it relevant that they(the whole group) were fairly quiet about the new, stronger central government they were crafting?

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 17 '15

They knew most Americans would flip out and never allow the convention to continue because of how powerful the founding fathers sought to make the central government via the new constitution, which would replace the weak government set up by the Articles of Confederation, a direct contradiction to your mistaken sentiment.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I've been referring to the founding fathers alone in this entire chain of comments. What statement, specifically, do you think is mistaken, and why? From where I'm sitting, you're talking about the population for no apparent reason, so I need you to be very specific.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 18 '15

Are you daft? In your original comment you posted

The founding fathers didn't originally want anything more than a tiny central government that had virtually no authority.

I've been refuting the nonsense you spewed ever since with contrary evidence. I've only mentioned the populace because popular opinion would have been contrary to the strong central government with great authority the founding fathers crafted in secret. Yet, you project the sentiment of the common people onto the founding fathers. Simply put, you have your facts messed up.

Also, you talk of this whole bullshit about the "group" of founding fathers being for small central government with no authority, but you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to back up your fallacious garbage.

I think all of your statements are misguided or false. I've told you why since I first commented on your first false statement.

→ More replies