Those founding fathers you question affirmed those rights by writing on that piece of paper that those rights are not to be diminished. I don't believe anyone worships either of them but we do revere them. The Constitution of the United States is the foundation that our country was based on. With out law there is only anarchy. Even Adam and Eve had to obey God's law so there will always be those that dictate what you do. Most of your points can be refereed to these points.
Oh, my. How did you get from the foundational law of the current union to anarchy?
Here are some points, in no particular order:
Carsontech asks the right question. Why are the founders idolized? Most of the Framers were politicians and lawyers. Citing Founders is only useful if your listener has some pre-existing appreciation of them. But, citing Founders misses if the listener has no appreciation for them as, for example, many recent fedgov highest executives. But, it also misses with people who know a bit more about the Founders, the constitutional convention, and the history of ratification. Meaning, the more you know, the less you idolize them or the constitution.
Carsontech's avatar is a dead giveaway for some readers here. The man pictured in the avatar is Lysander Spooner. In 1870 he posed the idea (paraphrase) that the constitution either gave us the government we have, or was powerless to stop it. Meaning, even in his time, the fedgov was turning into a bloated monster, breaking its parchment, nonselfenforcing chains. Even one of the Founders wrote, "what have we wrought?" in dismay for what the fedgov was becoming. My memory is a little foggy. I forget who wrote it when. Jefferson? Sometime between 1811 -1819? The point is, the fedgov promptly started shedding its restraints--the men supposedly restrained weren't. By promptly, I mean promptly. The Alien and Sedition Acts under the second executive--John Adams--contained a clear, obvious, and unmistakeable violation of 1A freedom of speech/press. A number of men were charged
and convicted. So, the federal courts involved were co-conspirators. The constitution is just a piece of parchment. It cannot enforce itself. There are, have been, and will be men who wish to control others and will ignore it.
The Founders were politicians and lawyers. The constitutional convention was initiated with deceit. The call was for a convention to tune up the Articles of Confederation. Many of the conventioneers ended up in the fedgov (like there was no conflict of interest there, right?)
And the constitution that issued from the convention didn't say a damn thing about a bill of rights. Those Founders anybody wants to idolize tried to give us a constitution without a bill of rights, and it was only through the howling of men like George Mason and Patrick Henry who completely distrusted such a government that we got a bill of rights (which was promptly ignored and has been watered down bit and piece ever since.) The Anti-federalists raised such a fuss it threatened to completely derail the ratification of the constitution by the states. James Madison, the so-called father of the bill of rights wanted nothing to do with them, calling them odious or some such. He only collected the state recommendations and edited them into the Bill of Rights after ratification was on the ropes. Some father.
Hamilton, that lying, conniving, monarchist bastard did everything he could to persuade against a bill of rights. Yeah. The same little weasel who said that freedom was written on the souls of men opposed the bill of rights and gave obviously specious arguments that the Anti-federalists didn't buy for one minute.
In the only state to submit the constitution to a public vote, Rhode Island, the constitution was defeated by something like 11-1.
For the record, the Anti-federalists were right. They were convinced such a government as created under the constitution would grow, grabbing more power and more influence and more tyranny as it went. It did. They were right.
One of the primary Federalist arguments against a bill of rights in the constitution was that there was already no power in the constitution for the government to act in various areas. Since there was no power for congress, for example, to criminalize certain speech or press critical of government, then there was no need provide protection for the same. Yeah, right. The Alien and Sedition Acts proved that was a lie. And, we all know how carefully the government adheres to using only the powers given in the constitution. The "no power" argument for not adding a bill of rights was ridiculous and the Anti-federalists knew it.
Even Ben Franklin was convinced the constitution would fail, and said so. See his closing address to the constitutional convention.
John Adams put on airs of pomp and royality as president. He hated the idea of democracy and was mortified when Jefferson defeated him in the election of 1800. He was also a Federalist. The same bunch that tried to pass off a constitution with no bill of rights. And, he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. The weasel. The judges who sentenced citizens for violating those acts were Federalists. The judge who cemented judicial review when there was no such power mentioned in the constitution, John Marshall, was a Federalist who despised Jefferson. You see where I'm headed with this.
You can't see what's there unless you pull back the curtain of reverence for the constitution, what Kenneth Royce aptly termed "parchment idolatry." Set aside the reverence for a moment and take a look. Alternatively, if you want to revere some people, select people like The Nazarene. Even if one cannot accept His divinity, its hard to argue against his compassion and the benefit of using his principles. Or, Bhudda (spiritual freedom, compassion) whose ideas helped bring civilization to a barbarous China. Or, John Locke who published in 1689 the analysis of rights found in the Declaration of Independence--"We hold these truths..." Or, Thomas Jefferson who, while not perfect in his application, was probably better than any other founder at actually applying principles of freedom. Or, Lysander Spooner, who wrote for rights and freedom. His 1870 essay
No Treason is a penetrating critique of the constitution against which it is very difficult to argue with intellectual integrity. Meaning, if you must revere somebody, select men and women who
proved their committment to freedom. Rather than men like Adams, Hamilton, & Co. (Federalists) who threw off a king and quickly started working on setting up things to benefit themselves, and that bore little more than lip-service resemblence to the liberty they told everybody else they were fighting for. Remember, those rights they didn't want to put in the constitution were also, mostly, the very rights of Englishmen they earlier claimed the king and parliament were not giving them.
As for the anarchy comment, the absence of the constitution does not equate with anarchy. We had the governments of the individual countries (states). We had the Articles of Confederation that were not tuned up but could have been. And, that convention could have written a better constitution. For example, they could have actually finished Article Three (courts) rather than leave it up to congress to write the Judiciary Act to flesh out the rest of Article III. Which reminds me. More than one scholar has pointed out that the Judiciary Act of (1789?) was actually a constitutional amendment. But, it was passed by congress as a statute, not subject to the ratification process required by Article V. Another neat little machination and subversion.
By the way, one of the New England states went for something like three years without a state government. No disaster. No terror or lawlessness in the streets. This was around the time of the Articles of Confederation if I recall.
One last thought. If you just can't get past the idolatry/reverence for the founders and the constitution, ask yourself why the careful omission of the facts I mentioned above about the constitution and founders. Why is that stuff not taught in high school, in-depth. Who benefits from the population not knowing? Why isn't it mainstream knowledge instead of being usually found in college courses or out-of-the-way books.
Cui bono? (Who benefits?) Who benfits from the population not knowing what actually happened, supplanting knowledge with reverence instead?
