ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Thomas Jefferson passage from a letter in the Library of Congress

mn78psu83

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2011
24,135
12,229
1
Happy Independence Day! I'm a little early and this passage is not strictly related to Independence Day, but I think it is in the proper spirit. If it isn't, my apologies. It ain't un-American though. :)

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. 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 change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

The full letter:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/

Link to the passage on p. 6 of the original in the Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.049_0255_0262/?sp=6
 
Well, I feel compelled to reply.

I have spoke about a hypothesis I have, many times, regarding most people: binary thinking. The average person can only see things in terms of black/white; right/wrong; in/out; up/down; light/dark; on/off; left/right; gay/straight; etc etc etc. Things just don't work that way.

Demlion hit on something that I intuitively knew, but never expressed. That "fixes" are rarely 100%. Demlion was arguing well in defense to the "Green Dot Initiative" regarding how to act when witnessing a crime/violence. His argument was started in my thread about the two woman fighting in WalMart and how no one did anything.

IIRC, Demlion was advocating a "fix". Not a 100% fix but a fix, nonetheless. That's what the Green Dot Initiative did. He sold me that even fixing a problem 30% is better than not doing anything.

So, yes, as Thomas Jefferson points out. "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 change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."

And, to that, I say, "HEAR! HEAR!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
It's funny to me when modern politicians make an argument and say, "That's what the founding fathers intended". How the hell do they know unless they have a time machine?? There is a reason why the U.S. Constitution has provisions for amendment. Thomas Jefferson would hate today's strict constructionists.
 
It's funny to me when modern politicians make an argument and say, "That's what the founding fathers intended". How the hell do they know unless they have a time machine?? There is a reason why the U.S. Constitution has provisions for amendment. Thomas Jefferson would hate today's strict constructionists.
Perhaps, although that is a matter of debate. However, since he was neither a framer nor signer, I would rather look to the views of Madison, who is considered "the Father of the Constitution".
 
It's funny to me when modern politicians make an argument and say, "That's what the founding fathers intended". How the hell do they know unless they have a time machine?? There is a reason why the U.S. Constitution has provisions for amendment. Thomas Jefferson would hate today's strict constructionists.

One thing that is extremely likely, is that the authors of the Constitution did not think that the country would forever be frozen in 1787, nor did they want it to be.
 
One of Jefferson's chief attributes as a progressive man was in his willingness to challenge contemporary assumptions made about earlier times, which take place almost exclusively when documents are written, utilized, preserved, and referenced by later generations. The anachronistic view of earlier intentions through the lens of contemporary society is so misguided as to be almost laughable had it not been for their stultifying effects. Jefferson most likely began this sort of assessment in his studies of the Bible, in which he challenged earlier assumptions by trying to reduce the lessons in them to human terms. Thus, the lessons had to be practical and had to be common sensical and therefore believable. In this way he was able to see that people are the same in all generations, and that in every generation people essentially want fairness, justice, a certain measure of peace, and a playing field that allows for equal opportunity and occasional moments of joy. When just people write, regardless of era, they write to this effect, and our current interpretations of earlier documents must include this sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mn78psu83
It's funny to me when modern politicians make an argument and say, "That's what the founding fathers intended". How the hell do they know unless they have a time machine?? There is a reason why the U.S. Constitution has provisions for amendment. Thomas Jefferson would hate today's strict constructionists.
I don't think you understand the meaning of "strict constructionist." They are not against amendment. In fact, they fully support it. What they are against is reading things into the constitution that aren't there. The whole point is that the proper way to change the constitution is to amend it, not reinterpret its language and provisions.
 
I don't think you understand the meaning of "strict constructionist." They are not against amendment. In fact, they fully support it. What they are against is reading things into the constitution that aren't there. The whole point is that the proper way to change the constitution is to amend it, not reinterpret its language and provisions.
I think that too many people's thoughts on this need some more research!

The most important issue here is that we are a country of LAWS not men(or women). If we were a country of men then a man or a small group of people could change laws to their own benefit. Since sovereignty is held by all of the people the majority rules without unfairly taking from the minority.

If we were a country of men then we would be like the past kings in Europe or other dictators around the world where men get to say what goes. The original meaning of the constitution can be understood through studying the writings of the authors. By being a strict constitutionalist only means that we must remain faithful to what the law or constitution actually meant and still means. It can change with the times through the amendment process. It is difficult to chanhe and it should be. If it was easy to amend then our rights could be easily taken away.

The constitution is the original source of "Power to the People" document. Should it change with the times? Only if it is amended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eidolon21
The founding fathers were nothing short of genius.

The constitution is, and is often referred to as, a framework (including the bill of rights). The constitution is the skeleton or bones of our society. Fundamentally, it protects are inalienable rights. It also sets up a framework for govt and due process. it limits federal govt power, state and local powers, and each branch of govt. Each branch is also, then, a check and balance on each other.

It is a living document. While the 'bones' don't often change, the laws on which the 'bones' are based change constantly in accordance with societal wishes. Gay rights, of course, being one of the recent examples.

And the constitution can be changed, as we see with a litany of amendments in place. But it takes a considerable bi-partisan agreement (2/3 of both hoses of congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures.

Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and the rest could have set themselves up to be a cabal. Instead, by way of the constitution, they gave us a republic. They sacrificed personal gain and power for us. To me, they are the greatest Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eidolon21
." it limits federal govt power, state and local powers"

To be clear, the Constitution only limits federal governmental power to the extent that only certain powers were delegated to it by the states. Likewise the Constitution only limits state powers to the extent that the states delegated certain powers to the federal government and those powers are within the purview of the federals.

The states were the "Creator" and the federal government was the "Createe" so to speak. We as a nation have long ago forgotten that fact.
 
." it limits federal govt power, state and local powers"

To be clear, the Constitution only limits federal governmental power to the extent that only certain powers were delegated to it by the states. Likewise the Constitution only limits state powers to the extent that the states delegated certain powers to the federal government and those powers are within the purview of the federals.

The states were the "Creator" and the federal government was the "Createe" so to speak. We as a nation have long ago forgotten that fact.
Well said sir.

I give you the fact that over 30 states voted; including Califonia to maintain traditional, historical marriage (Man & Woman) and "judges" cancelled out our 10th amendment rights (STATE). Just for the record, I believe that those states that voted to go in the other direction - by vote - had that right. It troubles me that judges and this Supreme are trying to write law instead of interpret law and @ the same time trying to usurp powers specifically inumerated in the constitution to the States. Sad days ahead.
 
ADVERTISEMENT