Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[Robert Prey]

Well, how would you compare the American constitution to, say, the Norwegian one written in 1814, and the influence of the genius of the Crown Prince of Denmark-Norway, Christian Frederik, Nicolai Wergeland and later his son, Henrik Wergeland? At the time it was the most radical constitutions in Europe, and gave the right to vote to an unprecedented amount of people.

Or how about the monumental work of enlightened genius Mustafa "Ataturk" Kemal and the Turkish constitution. Sure, it was written in the 20th century, much later than both the American and Norwegian ones, but you can't deny the greatness of it.

But there are so many countries and constitutions in the world, no one can expect you to know much about two random ones, even if these are great examples in history, next to the American one. But since you've declared it to be the best, are there any others you would mention, that you've studied and found lacking?

The Constitution of the Soviet Union comes to mind.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It would be a stretch to classify most of the documents you refer to as 'Constitutions" -- the context of what I assumed this thread was about (Summa Theologica.a Constitution??")

Your words:

'The US Constitution is the greatest, most brilliant political document ever written.'

I challenged that belief.

And there is a difference between a political philosopher and political genius.

Does not compute.

The Founders were influenced by many political philosophers some of which you mention, but their genius was putting it together and getting it passed. Now, if you have other ideas... Compare and contrast.

Passed in a legislative fashion? The ideals of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli and Hayek changed the entire nature and future of Western civilisation. I'd dare say that is more influential.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The Constitution of the Soviet Union comes to mind.

Which one?

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, how would you compare the American constitution to, say, the Norwegian one written in 1814, and the influence of the genius of the Crown Prince of Denmark-Norway, Christian Frederik, Nicolai Wergeland and later his son, Henrik Wergeland? At the time it was the most radical constitutions in Europe, and gave the right to vote to an unprecedented amount of people.

Or how about the monumental work of enlightened genius Mustafa "Ataturk" Kemal and the Turkish constitution. Sure, it was written in the 20th century, much later than both the American and Norwegian ones, but you can't deny the greatness of it.

But there are so many countries and constitutions in the world, no one can expect you to know much about two random ones, even if these are great examples in history, next to the American one. But since you've declared it to be the best, are there any others you would mention, that you've studied and found lacking?

Far be it from me to question one's preferences, but to most Americans, the Norway Constitution would be repugnant to Liberty. A Constitutional Monarchy? An official State Religion? The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same? The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused?

And: "It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling every person capable of work to earn a living by his work." Comment: I doubt it.

To each his own. Interesting, but I prefer the US Const.

 

[Darat]

..snip...

To each his own. Interesting, but I prefer the US Const.

You mean the one until recently segregated your society based on a subjective judgement as to citizen's "race".

 

[Robert Prey]

You mean the one until recently segregated your society based on a subjective judgement as to citizen's "race".

That is not true. Segregation occurred not because of but in spite of Constitutional Guarantees. And it was the Constitution and the Declaration that provided the basis for Civil Rights Laws that corrected the practice.

 

[Chaos]

That is not true. Segregation occurred not because of but in spite of Constitutional Guarantees. And it was the Constitution and the Declaration that provided the basis for Civil Rights Laws that corrected the practice.

Then your country, "until recently the freest in the world", used its Constitution for toilet paper during the first 175 years or so that it had one. Doesn´t sound too exemplary to me.

 

[Travis]

A complete answer would require a book, not a single post. But let's start with money--Federal Reserve Notes -- Completely Unconstitutional and the cause of a 14 trillion debt and "dollar' that has lost 95 percent of its value.since 1913.

Ah for the good old days of extreme economic volatility. Of incompatible ad-hoc currencies. Of crushing depressions because of the inability to go into debt.

That is not true. Segregation occurred not because of but in spite of Constitutional Guarantees. And it was the Constitution and the Declaration that provided the basis for Civil Rights Laws that corrected the practice.

Do you think the Constitution guarantees that Muslims have the right to freely practice their religion in the USA?

Do you think homosexual marriage should be allowed to be legalized since the Constitution says nothing about it?

 

[Robert Prey]

Ah for the good old days of extreme economic volatility. Of incompatible ad-hoc currencies. Of crushing depressions because of the inability to go into debt.

Comment: You mean like the 1930's?

Do you think the Constitution guarantees that Muslims have the right to freely practice their religion in the USA?

Comment: Yes, so long as they continue to be a religion, and not a Murder Inc.

Do you think homosexual marriage should be allowed to be legalized since the Constitution says nothing about it?[

Comment: Government has no business "legalizing" marriage for anyone, but where there is no law, then the Common Law prevails.

/QUOTE]

 

[BenBurch]

A complete answer would require a book, not a single post. But let's start with money--Federal Reserve Notes -- Completely Unconstitutional and the cause of a 14 trillion debt and "dollar' that has lost 95 percent of its value.since 1913.

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, the first paper money in the Colonies was printed in 1690 by the Massachusetts Colony, and the founding fathers printed paper money to fund the Revolution, and the First Bank of The United States printed paper money. And none of them had the gold needed to back that scrip, even though they might grudgingly redeem same for gold, they held a tiny fraction.

If you wanted to back all US dollars in gold, how much gold would be backing each dollar if the USA had all the gold in the world?

In the history of the planet, about ten billion ounces of gold have been mined.

Total us money supply is about $9.3 Trillion.

So about 153 milligrams of gold would back every dollar.

Price of gold is currently $1600/oz.

At 153 mg/dollar, gold should be $186/ounce.

 

[Humes fork]

It should be pointed out that a rejection of the founders as demi-gods should not disqualify them from the hall of great political thinkers. Indeed, I think they would more more honoured to be mentioned in the same breath as Machiavelli, Aristotle, Hegel, Plato etc than looking down on them from the mountain top. They were secularists after all.

I agree with this. And I don't see where Obama fits into this. Obama is not a political philosopher or theorist, just a politician. Lenin and Stalin were political theorists (being despisable doesn't exclude that possibility), so I see why they are grouped with Jefferson etc in that regard.

 

[Travis]

Ah for the good old days of extreme economic volatility. Of incompatible ad-hoc currencies. Of crushing depressions because of the inability to go into debt.

Comment: You mean like the 1930's?

Good example. The Fed didn't have any real power until after that and we have avoided depressions ever since.

Do you think the Constitution guarantees that Muslims have the right to freely practice their religion in the USA?

Comment: Yes, so long as they continue to be a religion, and not a Murder Inc.

How would you distinguish it's "religiousness" and how could it's appeal to murder be differentiated from Christianity's long, long history of doing the same things?

Do you think homosexual marriage should be allowed to be legalized since the Constitution says nothing about it?

Comment: Government has no business "legalizing" marriage for anyone, but where there is no law, then the Common Law prevails.

However government is in the marriage business because of taxes and inheritance laws. So would you be cool with an Amendment that explicitly made gay marriage legal?

 

[Robert Prey]

Ah for the good old days of extreme economic volatility. Of incompatible ad-hoc currencies. Of crushing depressions because of the inability to go into debt.



Do you think the Constitution guarantees that Muslims have the right to freely practice their religion in the USA?

Do you think homosexual marriage should be allowed to be legalized since the Constitution says nothing about it?

Good example. The Fed didn't have any real power until after that and we have avoided depressions ever since.



How would you distinguish it's "religiousness" and how could it's appeal to murder be differentiated from Christianity's long, long history of doing the same things?



However government is in the marriage business because of taxes and inheritance laws. So would you be cool with an Amendment that explicitly made gay marriage legal?

Let me put it to you ABC kindygarten simple: I think there ought to be a law that places a fine of at least $1,000 to anyone who uses the word "gay" when they mean homosexual, thereby contributing to the destruction of a perfectly innocent and wonderful word once used as an easy rhyme in countless torch songs which now become un-singable lest the utterance be taken as a moniker for sexual deviancy. My libertarian lean does have its limits. Pray that I never become a dictator.

 

[Chaos]

Let me put it to you ABC kindygarten simple: I think there ought to be a law that places a fine of at least $1,000 to anyone who uses the word "gay" when they mean homosexual, thereby contributing to the destruction of a perfectly innocent and wonderful word once used as an easy rhyme in countless torch songs which now become un-singable lest the utterance be taken as a moniker for sexual deviancy. My libertarian lean does have its limits. Pray that I never become a dictator.

Who else in history, other than the Nazis and the occasional commie hellhole, have made using harmless words in harmless contexts punishable?

Actually, if I were to pray for anything in politics, I´d pray that you had to spend some time under the yoke of someone with views as totalitarian and inhumane as yours, only targetted at your ilk instead.

 

[Travis]

Let me put it to you ABC kindygarten simple: I think there ought to be a law that places a fine of at least $1,000 to anyone who uses the word "gay" when they mean homosexual, thereby contributing to the destruction of a perfectly innocent and wonderful word once used as an easy rhyme in countless torch songs which now become un-singable lest the utterance be taken as a moniker for sexual deviancy. My libertarian lean does have its limits. Pray that I never become a dictator.

And let make this simple: no one owns the English Language. And if you have a problem with the meaning of words changing, especially if that problem is rooted in your own bigotry, you are going to have to just deal with it or take off and start your own society.



And I take it the First Amendment is one part of the Constitution you have issues with.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let me put it to you ABC kindygarten simple: I think there ought to be a law that places a fine of at least $1,000 to anyone who uses the word "gay" when they mean homosexual, thereby contributing to the destruction of a perfectly innocent and wonderful word once used as an easy rhyme in countless torch songs which now become un-singable lest the utterance be taken as a moniker for sexual deviancy. My libertarian lean does have its limits. Pray that I never become a dictator.

I don't pray. Is it sufficient that I giggle with glee over the thought that you're not a dictator?

Sexual deviancy? What century do you come from?

 

[Robert Prey]

Then your country, "until recently the freest in the world", used its Constitution for toilet paper during the first 175 years or so that it had one. Doesn´t sound too exemplary to me.

The successes of the USA are largely the obedience to the Constitution. The short-comings due to the disobedience of the Constitution. But it has never been used for toilet paper, comrade.

 

[Travis]

The successes of the USA are largely the obedience to the Constitution. The short-comings due to the disobedience of the Constitution. But it has never been used for toilet paper, comrade.

Slavery was disobedience to the Constitution?
Not giving women the right to vote was disobedience to the Constitution?

 

[Robert Prey]

BTW, the first paper money in the Colonies was printed in 1690 by the Massachusetts Colony, and the founding fathers printed paper money to fund the Revolution, and the First Bank of The United States printed paper money. And none of them had the gold needed to back that scrip, even though they might grudgingly redeem same for gold, they held a tiny fraction.

If you wanted to back all US dollars in gold, how much gold would be backing each dollar if the USA had all the gold in the world?

In the history of the planet, about ten billion ounces of gold have been mined.

Total us money supply is about $9.3 Trillion.

So about 153 milligrams of gold would back every dollar.

Price of gold is currently $1600/oz.

At 153 mg/dollar, gold should be $186/ounce.

It's a flawed economic argument, fallaciously used from the very beginning. But the question has to due with the illegality of Federal Reserve Notes to which you seem to have no argument.