Life Is Not Fair......

[Guest Swamprunner]

....But Don't Change The Constitution To Make It Fair.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Rush Limbaugh: "Life Is Not Fair"

There is a movement to change our sacred constitution because "it is a living, breathing document, that needs to reflect the current times".

What a bunch of horse manure,

[tntnixon]

I've often wondered about the notion of what "fair" means. It seems that people want fair to mean that nothing bad is allowed to happen to them. But, that way of thinking isn't fair, either. It assumes that one portion of the population must hold the burden for another segment of the population. Is that "fair"? I don't thingk so.

"Fair", in my opinion, means that good things and bad things can happen to everyone without one portion of the population having to hold up the other. Everyone can either live or die by their own merits or their lack thereof. They can prosper or perish by their own decisions. That is "fair".

So for all this talk of "fairness", the real goal is plunder of one group by another. The use of our laws for the benefit of "looters", as Ms. Rand would have said, is the ultimate goal of the "fairness" doctrine. The survival of one man by the sweat of another man's brow is these people's wet dream. They talk of freedom for the masses, yet want to enslave those who have the highest level of production.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Fair", when contemporarily used means someone wants

they don't have and don't "deserve", which is another

silly word that gets used too often for the wrong reason.

[Guest BEARMAN]

There are the "have's" and there are the "have nots" in our society. And, since the beginning of mankind, it's always been that way.

The "have nots" want everything the "have's" posess, and have worked hard all their lives to aquire. And they want them to pay for those posession's that they desire too.

This my friend's is the basis of the fairness doctorine, pure and simple.

Now, you decide...is the fairness doctorine really "fair"?

[tntnixon]

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's" (Exodus 20:17).

Somehow, we have become the most covetous society in the history of mankind, yet "the people" don't seem to want to believe it. It is an interesting conundrum how a country that touts itself as having Judeo-Christian virtues, has forgotten one of its basic tenets.

[DaveTN]

Our founding fathers were not so arrogant or narcissistic to believe that what they had written would be the Master Plan for all eternity. They put in place a system that allows for change. They also put in place a system to interpret the Constitution.

Slavery is abolished, voting rights are implemented, Liquor banned, liquor ban repealed, term limits, etc.

Things change.

Our founding fathers did not have the vision to see the automobile, automatic weapons, Space Travel or nuclear weapons. If they did they would have addressed it. But they were smart enough to know they couldn’t think of everything and put a system of change in place.

Things change…. Judges legislate from the bench when legislators don’t do their job. Get use to it.

No, our Constitution doesn’t need to be “Blown up and rewrittenâ€. Our founding fathers left the door open for change; they just didn’t make it easy.

Life is not “Fairâ€. We are governed by people and they make mistakes… we have to live with it and try to fix it when we can.

I doubt our founding fathers would agree with the Supreme Courts stamp of approval on eminent domain. I would have never thought they would go that way. But I guess I live with it and hope the city, county, or state doesn’t decide they want my property.

[tntnixon]

Our founding fathers were not so arrogant or narcissistic to believe that what they had written would be the Master Plan for all eternity. They put in place a system that allows for change. They also put in place a system to interpret the Constitution.

Slavery is abolished, voting rights are implemented, Liquor banned, liquor ban repealed, term limits, etc.

Things change.

Our founding fathers did not have the vision to see the automobile, automatic weapons, Space Travel or nuclear weapons. If they did they would have addressed it. But they were smart enough to know they couldn't’t think of everything and put a system of change in place.

Things change…. Judges legislate from the bench when legislators don’t do their job. Get use to it.

No, our Constitution doesn't’t need to be “Blown up and rewritten”. Our founding fathers left the door open for change; they just didn't’t make it easy.

Life is not “Fair”. We are governed by people and they make mistakes… we have to live with it and try to fix it when we can.

I doubt our founding fathers would agree with the Supreme Courts stamp of approval on eminent domain. I would have never thought they would go that way. But I guess I live with it and hope the city, county, or state doesn't’t decide they want my property.

Unless you consider John Marshall as one of our "founding fathers", this argument is untrue. At the original Constitutional Convention the "judicial review" role of the Supreme Court was only even mentioned by 11 of the 55 delegates, 2 of those mentioning it were against the idea, altogether. The US Constitution therefore does not grant such powers to the judiciary, however John Marshall, in Marbury vs. Madison, gave that role to the courts thereby usurping power that wasn't theirs to begin with.

Also, the whole concept of the US Constitution as a "living breathing" document, is a 20th Century one. Not because there is any evidence that the "founding fathers" intended for it to be such, but merely at the whim of those who held power at that time. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in a 60 Minutes interview "The Constitution is a dead document. Why should we believe that our Constitution is any different from every other legal document other than the fact that it rules supreme? We wouldn't see our Last will and testament that way".

[DaveTN]

Unless you consider John Marshall as one of our "founding fathers", this argument is untrue.

"laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as new discoveries are made... institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times"

"But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I do not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people...

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose that what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it... I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times...

Let us follow no such examples (of the European monarchs), nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."

Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1816

[tntnixon]

"laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as new discoveries are made... institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times"

"But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I do not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people...

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose that what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it... I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times...

Let us follow no such examples (of the European monarchs), nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."

Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1816

Can you please tell me how any of what you just wrote has anything to do with the meaning of the words of the Constitution changing over time. You just took out of context exerpts from a letter written to Samuel Kercheval which is about ammending the Constitution and proposed amendments thereto. Also, he is quite unhappy with the judiciary and is proposing that life time judicial appointments be removed and their offices be elective. Here's the whole letter, so we're not confused

Thomas Jefferson: Letter To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816 .

BTW: Did you do that editing job on letter in your post, or did you find it already butchered like that on some liberal website?

One other side note, this letter was about the Virginia Constitution, not the US Constitution but I understand how the reasonings and words could be applied to both.

Edited August 7, 2010 by tntnixon