70% Say Founders Would Disagree with How We Currently Follow the Constitution

Outside The Beltway
1

https://www.cato.org/blog/70-say-american-founders-would-disagree-how-we-currently-follow-constitution

I found this rather interesting.

It is a survey, not an opinion piece, so I neither agree nor disagree with it. Just presenting it for what it is worth.

This quoted material is rather interesting.

The largest majorities of Americans said that equal protection under the law (77%) was “extremely important” to them, as is the right to privacy (76%), the right to vote (75%), and if accused of a crime to be made aware of the accusation and evidence (75%), and the right of free speech (74%).

Next, large majorities believe that the right to private property (71%), a fair trial (70%), a trial by a jury (70%), freedom of religion (68%), due process of law (68%), freedom against unreasonable search and seizure (68%), freedom of assembly (67%), right to travel (65%), freedom of the press (62%), the right to self defense (61%), to marry (61%), to petition the government (57%), freedom against cruel and unusual punishment (54%), and the right to bear arms (39%) are extremely important.

These are what the respondents consider rights that are particularly important to them.

There is a contradiction that indicates that people are not thinking things through all the way.

Self defense ranks at 61%, but RKBA ranks at only 39%. If you don’t have RKBA, you CAN’T have a right to self defense. Private property did well at 71%. Important as that is pretty much the foundation of our economic system.

However, I am fairly disturbed at how low some of these rights dipped. Had I been in the survey I would have said all these rights are important to me and in a perfect world, all would have gotten 100%.

As for overall approval of the Constitution, the oldest have the highest approval, the youngest have the lowest approval.

I do support changes to the Constitution. However, my reasons and proposal likely greatly differ from what Generation Z’s reasons and proposals would be.

My proposal aims to reign in the Executive Branch (the President in particular), as well as strengthening Congress in relationship to the President. I would alter the selection and tenure of the judiciary to achieve a truly independent judiciary, not the current collection of rabid partisans that both parties have been installing.

Overall, the results of the survey linked above are a decidedly mixed bag, but are not disastrous.

2 Likes
2

the constitution has changed drastically since the founding…

ask a slave…

1 Like
3

Yes, it has changed drastically, in some ways. Mostly for the better. But the basic government structure still exists.

And there is clearly room for improvement, though I would obviously disagree with Generation Z on what that improvement should entail.

4

Which brings this to mind.

image
image900×882 49.8 KB

2 Likes
5

I would note that the first two articles are guest essay’s. People write some over the top stuff.

On the other hand, Progressives, Libertarians and Conservatives agree that at least some change is needed.

This happened during Covid, so it really got overlooked, but the National Constitution Center conducted a constitution drafting project, with a Progressive team, a Libertarian team and a Conservative team all submitting proposals.

I was dissatisfied with all three for various reasons.

So I ultimately went and made my own draft, which is still in progress.

I will say that all three teams did something I was proud of.

They removed the “natural born citizen” requirement for President, opening the Presidency to anybody who has been a naturalized citizen for at least 14 years.

2 Likes
6

I, for one, am less concerned about any problems or deficiencies in the Constitution (which has a provision for amending it) than I am with the demagogic machinations to subvert it, re-interpret it, sidestep it etc…

If Progressives, Libertarians and Conservatives agree that at least some change is needed, they are certainly free to amend it according to the established process.

1 Like
7

Remember when homeowners owned the same weapons as the military?

1 Like
8

The Patriots were storing a lot more than hunting rifles at Lexington and Concord.

2 Likes
9

And the Founders loved that ■■■■ .

1 Like
10

I won’t be satisfied until I can deploy a SA-2 or Quad-50s out of the back of my 87 Toyota truck.

Why does the Talban get cool ■■■■ and I don’t?

1 Like
11

From the article:

85% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Constitution. However, 70% believe the American Founders would be disappointed with how our country is following the Constitution today.

Hmm maybe the Constitution is fine but
the American Founders would be disappointed with how our country is following the Constitution today.

So maybe instead of rewriting it,
Maybe instead of asking “How would progressives, libertarians etc. change it?”
Maybe we should be saying “Hey, let’s actually follow it the way the founders intended.”

(Just a thought.)

1 Like
12

Quick follow-up via MS CoPilot:

Yes, some founders did use parody and satire in their writings to critique and influence public opinion. For example, Benjamin Franklin was known for his satirical essays and parodies. He often used humor and wit to address serious political and social issues1.

During the debates over the Constitution, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists used pseudonyms and sometimes employed satirical tones in their writings. For instance, Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Phocion,” used a sharp and sometimes sarcastic style to defend the Federalist position2. Similarly, Anti-Federalist writers like George Clinton (“Cato”) and Samuel Bryan (“Centinel”) occasionally used satire to criticize the proposed Constitution2.

These techniques were effective in engaging readers and making complex political arguments more accessible and memorable.