Presidential material?

Just a thought, but wasn't a Civil War fought a mere generation after the founders? The Constitution itself wasn't ratified by all the states for nearly 15 years after the revolution. The Bill of Rights wasn't added to the Constitution until 1791.

Exactly which "raw form" are you speaking of? Exactly when did people start trampling? Was it prior to the Civil War? To give you an example, James Madison lived until 1836 (one of the longest living Founders). Did the trampling start before after the Founders' deaths? The Supreme Court's Judicial Review wasn't understood until 1803- a majority of the Founders were still in politics during that time. Yet, we tout the SC as unconstitutionally making law at every decision. The Founders weren't in complete agreement on the issue, but they didn't start another revolution over what people today are calling "treasonous".

So, are we going with "raw form" at the 1787 creation date, or when the Bill of Rights was tacked on in 1791, or when the balance of powers was understood sometime after 1803, or after the Civil War solidified who was free after 1861, or after the Civil Rights movement established equality after 1968?

Do you think the Founders ever envisioned communications of today, international terrorism, or anyone that acts outside the social norms of 1776? Was homosexual marriage a concern for the Founders? What are we to do with the situations that aren't so explicit in the document? Are we to blind ourselves, intelligence wise, for the sake of potential misuse? That sounds great in theory, but what happens after a more organized enemy decides that the US looks like a great vacation spot and we don't have the ability to see or react to it. Should we minimize gov't by 75%? What is the right size? We could make it happen overnight, but what happens when no one oversees the interstate highway system? Our pothole filled drive from SC to WA turns into a 4 week endeavor. What happens when a criminal conducts an interstate crime? With no FBI, what state has jurisdiction? Not a big deal until someone in your family is killed by a serial killer that runs multiple states and there is NO agency to coordinate efforts. In 1776, there wasn't much need for police or other agencies, but what happens in 2012 when we draw down police forces to "avoid the police state"? Are Americans today the same as those of 1776? Respect for law creates order. Look at LA during the 1992 riots for an example of what happens when that respect is gone. If police disappeared tomorrow, would we see the same on a larger scale (let's face it, we are outnumbered in such a situation).

Complicated questions. I believe the document is sound too. Sometimes, though, its not as black and white as we wished it would be.

 

98% of this ^ is a continued gross oversimplification of the situation. It takes a bit more than quoting men who loved Liberty out of context to apply to our situation. You quoted Andrew Jackson- the man that created the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Does the below quote seem a bit hollow in retrospect?
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
That is just one example. *gasp* tyranny amongst the "Liberty Patriots". I guess Indians weren't apart of the "free citizens" he was talking about. Can you imagine the response if Obama said tomorrow he was going to "relocate" the Tea Partiers? Everyone would be up in Arms. So what would the Indian think about "studying those who cherished liberty and resisted tyranny gives us even more insight." The Indian received less liberty from Jackson. Do I need to get on Jefferson and his love child from slave?

My point isn't that Andy Jackson wasn't a good man, he's a great Tennessean like me The same is true for T. Jefferson. To say that slave and Indian issues don't apply because it was a different time, but today's issues are applicable to the "idea" then is gross injustice. Just as not everything was black and white during slavery and Indian affairs, not everything today is black and white. Is there a double standard we are supposed to live by that does not apply to the Founders? No. Everything is a shade of grey. Only a simpleton speaks in absolutes. My point is that even post-ratification, the details weren't worked out. That is the reason for the changes. The principles don't change, but the times do and so a strict-constructionist view is not helpful in that regard.

Another example- taxes. I know most think we should do away with all forms of taxation. Who pays an Army? Who makes roads? The reason I brought up homosexual marriage is because these complicated issues tie together. Its easy to say "do away with taxes". Its tougher to deal with the consequences of pirates without a Navy or roads with no money for repair. Ok- minimal taxing. Well, how much do people get taxed? Families? That brings us full circle to homosexual marriage. Can 2x non-gays elope in a civil union and avoid paying as much tax? There are repercussions to these questions and the simple cop out of "not the gov'ts business" may not settle all those repercussions.

​

The gov't exists to protect the weak. To say "self governance" and "bearing arms against tyranny" is going to stop the havenots from running all of you and yours is ridiculous. Its idealistic at best. Whats your grand theory for the mean time:
"Me and teddy gonna have us a lynchin' "
Who is in charge of that justice? Is it mob justice? Sounds good if you are on the right side of the law, but what happens if there is an accidental death? Let's say you cause it? Should we just string you up as well?

This individualistic application of "self governance" bullsh*t didn't apply in 1776 and doesn't apply now. That is the reason why a FEDERAL army was stood up. Because no one and no country plays by that idealistic rule. It amounts to some idealistic, hippie, commune way of living in harmony that simply doesn't work. It amazes me how someone can call the gov't and its people corrupt and in the same breath state that man without gov't would not be corrupt.... the common denominator is man. If man is involved, be prepared for selfishness.... with selfishness, there can never be "self governance" at an individual level.

(ETA: For clarity, the ^ refers to Brokor's continued misuse of the term "self governance" as a more individual philosophy and not a political / organizational one. As understood in the 1700s, "self governance" was the collective idea that we "vote our own destiny". Perhaps that is the danger in taking quotes out of context.)