• F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____. Really, it was a fairly well put together document. Solid effort, gold stars all around. But, given its quality, the constitution has been difficult to pull away from.

      If you’ve ever seen what a group of kids spontaneously untethered by the rules of a game decide to do, it might offer some perspective on the coming years

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____.

        Here’s an easy flowchart for that:

        Does the literal reading support the dismantlement of democracy and/or the implementation of a theocratic state? If yes, then it should be read literally. Otherwise no.

        • porksnort@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          This. Simple as. It’s a common bad-faith debating technique called ‘saying whatever random-ass thing makes the stupid people listening think I am right’.

        • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I realize the sarcasm, but this was a major point of contention for decades after the passing of the founding fathers, even without power grabs. Technically, every political move is a power grab, but still. There was previously more sincerity to the line of thought

    • TotallynotJessicaOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because they view the morals America was founded on as fair and just with a few tweaks. People on one side think the white supremacy is a betrayal of the promise of equality, while others see it as based. American values can then be celebrated by both without them meaning the same thing. At the end of the day, promises of human rights and genocidal bigotry made America what it is, and so long as America is America, they always will.

      I personally don’t give a shit what people 200+ years ago thought, nor do I care for dogma of today.

    • Marcela (she/her)
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why stop there? I bet Australopethecus Anamensis wasn’t supportive of trans rights as well as other modern things like having teeth beyond your 26th birthday.

  • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    2 months ago

    “none of the founders would have supported trans”

    they all owned literal slaves so i dont really give a fuck what they think

  • Zorsith
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 months ago

    Didn’t Benjamin Franklin have a thing for GILFs?

      • EpeeGnome@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        If anyone needs evidence of the above, read his Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress, a letter he wrote to a non-specific younger man advising him on all the ways that an older mistress was superior to a young one. It’s written in a humorous style, but also feels like he means every word.

  • BeeegScaaawyCripple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    just because the legal system and framework needs an overhaul isn’t a reason to throw out the entire thing. for example, Thomas Jefferson would have been a chaser too.