In your opinions, do you think the founding fathers did everything right in the building of the country?

Or, was there anything you feel that they had wrong? Or, something bad/corrupted they didn't foresee? In other words, if you were to build the USA from scratch now, what would you do differently?

To me, the BOR was brilliant. The EC was brilliant. The only thing I would change is we term limit all the damn legislators. I'm pretty sure the founders never expected congress critters to turn out to be the swamp creatures/career politicians that they are now, you know? Yeah, I've read the pros and cons of congressional term limits, but, imo, the pros outweigh the cons.

What do y'all say?

I’d go back to the Roman ideal of a citizen serving in government and returning to his farm afterwards (ala Cincinnatus). Granted, this was an ideal and not a common practice, but I’d do it as follows:

Random number drawn in a lottery every 6 years, powerball style, for senators and representatives. To be eligible, you must be a citizen, and not a felon or owe any back taxes. That’s it - you can decline appointment, and once appointed can never hold office again.

It would be nice if several of them hadn't owned slaves, but I don't think this is quite what you had in mind. Just a side note, really. But apart from the morality issue regarding owning other humans as property, and the founding fathers partaking in this unfortunate chapter (thus providing ammo for attacking the foundation of this country), I don't think this country will ever get past the lingering hatred against the evil white race because of it. I just wish that it had never happened because of the bullshit alone.

We didn't follow the ideal they set in both thoughts and action.

1. Term limits for Congress
2. Although not the founders fault, making Senators elected by the popular vote. They are not watching out for the good of the state(s), rather they are looking to get the popular (re-election) vote

I think that the Founders did an incredible job of designing our country.

It was feel-good moroons who came along later, changing our system to where we have people living off of the government teat, who are allowed to vote themselves more teats, that f'ed the system up.

Now we are getting outvoted by those who contribute nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I’d go back to the Roman ideal of a citizen serving in government and returning to his farm afterwards (ala Cincinnatus). Granted, this was an ideal and not a common practice, but I’d do it as follows:

Random number drawn in a lottery every 6 years, powerball style, for senators and representatives. To be eligible, you must be a citizen, and not a felon or owe any back taxes. That’s it - you can decline appointment, and once appointed can never hold office again.

I like it. Make it a solemn duty, a necessary service to your constituency and not a position of power. I'd also bar anyone actively seeking the position.

I'd probably also rewrite the 2nd amendment so it cannot be purposely misconstrued. Something like this:

"Seeing that military, para-military, police and other organizations are necessarily to secure freedom and legal order and seeing that they are corruptible by the government, no government organization can legally limit the right of the people to purchase, make, keep, sell or transfer any form of weaponry."

Term limits for all positions, as others have mentioned I don't think they foresaw being a 'public servant' as such a monetary boondoggle that it is today, but as something people would do for awhile then return to private life.

Otherwise I think they did pretty darn good, aside from slavery but I'm sure if we look back there were reasons they couldn't tackle the issue at the time, ie the United States wouldn't exist if they had dropped anchor on that issue early on.

Setting of term limits and a mechanism to prevent career politicians.

A mechanism to prevent, or kick out, a politician who owes taxes or receives any sort of monetary gain for being in office to include their spouse, children, siblings, in-laws, etc.

Slavery. Just think of the BS that could have been averted if they'd just fully realized what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, All Men are Created Equal.

Specify the number of SCOTUS justices. The Dems will attempt to pack the court to overcome President Trump’s appointments if they gain the presidency, house, and senate.

And simply the second amendment to “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Interesting topic Q, thanks for posting! Over the years I've given this subject some thought. I agree that the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and The Constitution were brilliant documents...and they reflected the deliberative wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately wisdom and common sense aren't as widely instilled or practiced today and largely displaced by compassion.

I don't believe that anything man creates can be perfect. Just the opposite...we should strive for perfection knowing that it can never be attained. The U.S. Constitution reflects the imperfectness of compromise. The Founding Fathers fully realized that, in order to create a nation, they had to establish a unity in purpose, an American identity, and with Americans united on many ideologies while divided on others, meant that compromise was inevitable. They had to tap into the values and concerns Americans from that time shared while avoiding our differences.

I also don't believe that it is fair or rational to judge people from a previous time by today's standards, trends, or culture...they should be judged by the standards of their day.

Disclaimers out of the way:

-Although immigration or the issue of illegal aliens entering the U.S. wasn't a problem when the Constitution was being discussed, it would have been advantageous if the Founding Fathers had detailed the concept of Constitutional rights being limited to legally recognized citizens.

-Congress, by design, was intended to be a deliberative body, with the House of Representatives less so and the Senate more so. Yet, today, they are able to concoct too many poorly conceived poorly worded bills...and frequently bills all too large in scope. It would have been desirable to have the Constitution stipulate a Congressional limitation/ restriction on the number of bills they could consider as well as the size of the bill, in any one legislative session...with a provision for exceptions in times of national emergencies.

-It would have been advantageous for the Founding Fathers to address the issue of civic-mindedness and ensuring that legal citizens understood both the basics of how the government was organized and their duty to serve their country in some way and instill this responsibility in future generations. How this would have been implemented at the Constitutional level I'm still not certain. Civics was taught in schools at one time, and this is ideally where it would still be taught, but unfortunately it is not so. I can't help but wonder if there was a way to tie this into the Constitution.

-Given that militias were in common use and widely accepted as necessary at the time the Constitution was being debated, it would have been desirable to adopt a service model similar to the Swiss or Israeli model in which all able-bodied and mentally stable citizens within a certain age range be required to perform military service, mostly to provide national defense in times of emergencies, but this would also have promoted an esprit de corps and sense of national pride and national service, and one more shared sense of commonality if most citizens had experienced this.

-I've given quite a bit of thought to the Heinlein model of Citizen vs. Civilian, and while I understand the pros and cons of this system, I'm still not quite certain how to implement it at the constitutional level. I'm in favor of somehow linking the concept of those who serve the U.S. having greater influence in its shaping and perhaps a greater number of freedoms or rights.

The biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was in thinking that their wisdom, purity-of-intention, and honesty would be carried forward by future generations. They should have worked harder to idiot-proof the Constitution.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

.....they could have made a better attempt at a limited government.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
.....they could have made a better attempt at a limited government.

I think of this quote:

Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.
—Thomas Babington Macaulay

I think they did a pretty fine job. There are some things (the Federal Reserve comes to mind) that are clearly evil, horrendous, and have as their sole purpose to rob people of the fruits of their labors, but I am not sure that they could have seen that coming.

I kinda like the idea of the government being forced to live within its means, but that ship sailed a long time ago and I am not sure that precluding govt. borrowing wouldn’t have caused other, unintended problems.

I also kinda like the idea of politians wages being fixed. If their wages were set to a fixed dollar amount and not changeable without a constitutional amendment, then inflation would hurt them as much as everyone else. No voting yourself a raise, ever.

No retirement for politicians. You do your one term (if the above mentioned term limits are effected), then you are off the government tit. No special health care benefits either. You don’t get anything every other American citizen doesn’t get.

One challenge with term limits (and I tend to be a fan) is that with turnover and more people in office having a learning curve, this will tend to give more power and control to unelected bureaucrats. There’s probably a way around that, but it is worth watching out for.

I agree with some of the other things that have already been said.

My personal political philosophy can more-or-less be summed up as: governments do a terrible job of basically everything, so governments should only do the things that only governments can do and that there is a compelling need for.

In that vein, I've thought about things like:

1. Bills must be voted on one at a time, and each bill must fit on one side of a single page of standard letter-size paper, with the text rendered in single-spaced 12pt Times New Roman.

2. This might be taking things a little too far. Might! Every law and regulation except Constitutional amendments is required to have an expiration date of, say, five years from its date of passage. If it isn't important enough for someone to remember to and enough of Congress to agree to pass it again, then it doesn't need to be a law.

3. This would be a fairly radical restructuring, but an idea mentioned in passing in Robert Heinlein's novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" that I've always liked the sound of: Congress as a two-house body, where one house is responsible for passing bills, requiring a two-thirds majority, and the second house is responsible for repealing bills, requiring only a one-thirds majority.

quote:

Originally posted by Shifferbrains:
Slavery. Just think of the BS that could have been averted if they'd just fully realized what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, All Men are Created Equal.

This. Granted, they had to deal with the reality they found themselves living in regarding attitudes towards other races, and women, but I wish it could have been so.

I view the ideals expressed in the DoI and Constitution as a circle drawn around only a select group of people. The circle was almost perfect, except it should have been drawn around all US citizens, regardless of race or sex. (And of course, you couldn't be excluded from citizenship based on race.)

quote:

Originally posted by Shifferbrains:
Slavery. Just think of the BS that could have been averted if they'd just fully realized what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, All Men are Created Equal.

I seriously don't mean to offend you, but this topic has much, much more detail involved than you think.

To be brief, after winning the war for independence, the 13 states faced a dilemma. With the French, Spaniards, British armies (navies) AND the aborigines ("Indians") all being enemies, their only chance of survival was to UNITE as one nation. They held different opinions with regard to slavery, so certain compromises had to be made by the states in the North.

YET, if you study the constitution closely, the wording IS THERE to make the credible argument against slavery. You see the statement "All men are created equal" and see hypocrisy. I see it as a postponement of the final decision about slavery.

Sadly that postponement led to a conclusive war beginning in 1861.

Given the many hurdles the Founding Fathers were challenged with, I stand amazed at their genius. They were all devout Christians, and prayed fervently in all of their endeavors. I believe God was with them, and they did an excellent job. They created the best country the world has ever known!

But, there has been a force to undermine everything they achieved, and that force has been the Democrat Party.

Our Founding Fathers knew there would be forces of evil within the country, so they gave us many admonitions - most of which have been ignored, and we're now seeing the results of the failure to heed their warnings.

They told us things like:

* The cost of freedom is constant vigilance. A very large number of our population are not vigilant whatsoever. Many times I have shared with Democrat voters information about the very politicians they have voted for, THEN they regret having voted for them. Had they been vigilant, they would've have done a little research before they walked into the voting booth and searched for the "D." And, oh how easy it is to do research TODAY with the advent of the Internet!

* Those who would trade freedom for a little prosperity deserve neither. Again, look at the driving force of the Democrat Party: Those looking for handouts. And, when Democrats are in charge, freedoms and RIGHTS are curtailed.

I could go on and on. But, anybody who assesses the state of the country in 2018, and then tries to blame it on mistakes made by our Founding Fathers is truly mistaken.

1) the federal gov’t can’t tax an individual more than X%. Let’s call it 12%. This will limit the size of the fed govt.

2) fed govt can’t proceed without a balanced budget

3) money from outside a state can’t be spent on state and local elections.

4) clearly limit the commerce clause so it can’t be used as an excuse for the fed govt to do whatever they want.

i think you should have to be a landowner to vote, local state or national.