Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
That's a fine argument,
|
I gotta chime in here... That actually that looks like a fine
fact which pretty much kills your argument. Truth-Bringer has you on this one.
Quote:
however one could also argue that the Founders provided an escape from that clause with Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18:
A standing army is "necessary" to "provide for the common defence".
|
Not so, because your opinion/interpretation has absolutely no support from facts or evidence, as T-B keeps trying to explain to you. Please provide any quote or any writing from any Founder that states they believe "a standing army is necessary to provide for the common defense" and that it should remain permanent and replace the state militias.
Quote:
|
So you could argue that the Founders were generally opposed to a standing army,
|
There's no argument there. The Founders were opposed to a standing army, and that is a rock solid fact. Their quotes and writings clearly support this. If you have any quotes or writings to the contrary, please post them. An opinion isn't proof of anything.
Quote:
|
but also that they were open to the possibility that the Constitution not be so rigid that it became impractical for real life.
|
They did not believe in a "living" Constitution as the modern judiciary interprets it. They believed that changes should be made possible, but not that such changes could ever reverse or destroy the original intent. The only original intent that could rationally be altered would be errors which deprived people of life, liberty or unalienable rights - such as slavery. Any changes argued from the standpoint of extending unalienable rights under Natural Law to those who may have been deprived of such when the Constitution was originally ratified, would be supported from the Founders core beliefs.