Posted on 06/03/2024 12:08:41 PM PDT by dayglored
HEAVEN — Watching as the last vestige of the nation he helped found crumbled, George Washington sighed and remarked that America still had gone on a pretty solid two-hundred-fifty year run.
"Not bad, gentlemen," said Washington to a few other Founding Fathers. "It's sad to see it end, but we had a pretty epic couple of centuries there."
As the United States breathed its last, Washington opined on what he and the other Fathers could have done differently. "Maybe we should have added a few more instructions, like, ‘No, seriously, you can't infringe on the Bill of Rights, you jackwagons," said Washington. "Perhaps a few notes on the absolute need to teach Judeo-Christian morality, not allowing anti-Christian cultists to have power, or the President needing a few functioning neurons. Oh, well. Hindsight and all that."
At publishing time, Washington had reportedly consoled himself by remembering that he wouldn't have to spend eternity with the people who'd destroyed his nation.
Priceless.
Yeah, but there is truth in it.
Term limits would have been a good add on, along with an upper age limit to hold office.
Good one! Sad, though.
Or they could have added:
“and we really mean it.” After each of the bill of rights amendments.
Ben nailed it. “If you can keep it”. Looks like we can’t. I think Jefferson said if party’s are allowed it will destroy what they built. He nailed it too.
I would be interested in an exercise to “improve” the Constitution.
Some people like to say it’s just perfect and we just need to follow it. But we are now in a bad place, and the Constitution was insufficient to save us from ourselves. So I do think there is room for improvement.
As an example — yes, WE know what the Second Amendment says, but the actual wording seems have been “difficult” for some people to grasp. And now we have 10,000 gun control laws. The wording could be improved.
Taxes, tariffs, term limits and treason are all areas that could have been handled better — and that’s just the letter T.
I think working on an update would be worthwhile and I think a Constitutional Convention is needed.
Ben Franklin, born in 1706, was 81 in 1787 when, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, he made his famous comment about the nature of the new government:
"A Republic, if you can keep it."I suspect he would not have advanced his own name in a run for the Presidency.
His farewell address dealt with people not taking the Constitution seriously. He warned people to do so.
Sometimes countries have to overcome serious invasions and rebellions. But that doesn't mean it's over.
Our side, the side of America as designed and built, is on the side of right and righteousness. It is on the side of freedom and decency. It is on the side of God himself (for heaven's sake).
We will get over this and be stronger for it. Take heart because this battle has just begun...and we will win.
We will win because our desire for freedom and human dignity is vastly greater than our enemy's desire to enslave us.
We are fighting for our very lives...but our enemies are merely fighting to dominate and enslave us. Whose side has the more motivating cause? Which side is worth dying for?
America may have past her Golden Age, but I would settle for a good silver age. We need to go back to our moral roots. We need to go back the Reagan’s shinning city on a hill.
Oh, if only he and the other founding fathers could appear before Congress right now and give them the horse whooping they all deserve.
You are proposing a 55-gallon drum of worms there. Or maybe a 10,000-gallon tanker of worms.
Do you really think we would not simply end up shredding the Constitution and replacing it with a Socialist Manifesto?
IMO, much as I agree it's tempting, let's not go there.
The word "Judeo-Christian" did not exist in Washington's time.
The History of the term Judeo-Christian.
The term “Judæo Christian” first appears in a letter from Alexander McCaul which is dated October 17, 1821. The term in this case referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.
The term was similarly used by Joseph Wolff in 1829, in reference to a type of church that would observe some Jewish traditions in order to convert Jews.
Mark Silk states in the early 19th century the term was “most widely used (in French as well as English) to refer to the early followers of Jesus who opposed” the wishes of Paul the Apostle and wanted “to restrict the message of Jesus to Jews and who insisted on maintaining Jewish law and ritual”...
The concept of Judeo-Christian ethics or Judeo-Christian values in an ethical (rather than a theological or liturgical) sense was used by George Orwell in 1939, along with the phrase “the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals”.
Historian K. Healan Gaston has stated that the term emerged as a descriptor of the United States in 1930s, when the US sought to forge a unified cultural identity to distinguish itself from the fascism and communism in Europe.
The term rose to greater prominence during the Cold War to express opposition to communist atheism.
It has no enforcement provision. Legislators can pass, and executives can sign, blatantly unconstitutional bills. Even when the resulting "laws" are rejected by courts, the legislators and executives face no consequences for their misbehavior and violation of their oaths of office.
IDK, our Saint George may yet have a future date on a White Horse.
That’s exactly my fear. If they’d play with the law the way they have done, what would they do with a Convention?
Pshaw. Ya. The Bidens are in charge.
I like the Babylon bee but this is some wimpy crap
The basic problem with the Constitution is it was debated and ratified when the people of that new Nation still had traditional values that were working for the Colonists.
The Founders couldn't foresee the incredible change and lose of those values over time. Certain Articles and Amendments tried keep the Contract in tact, but they didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't see how much society would change for the worse.
I've studied each Article and Amendment to see where certain language could have been included to support those passages. I see the error was in the debates of the Constitutional Convention and haggling over wordage, rights, and especially structure of government. Some of the now State's delegates want an absolute federalize government. Others were firm in their States's Rights position.
Our U.S. Constitution is a compromise between differing States and their own ideas of the power and final say of our Federal Government vs State Government. IMHO, that is why our Constitution is lacking in the precise wording needed to clarify so many Articles and Amendments.
NO! I DO NOT WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. It will give some a chance to de-construct, through amendments, the opportunity to push their favorite issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.