Hacker News Reader

Comment by eadmund | Hacker News Reader

Also in 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which violated the First Amendment. The simple fact that a Congress included many Founders does not necessarily imply that its acts were all in compliance with the Constitution those same Founders wrote or concurred with years before.

Guaranteeing things even after people change their minds, and providing an agreed-upon process to change the agreement, is kind of the point of a constitution. Much like a contract between parties, it specifies the rules of the game ahead of time.

View on HN

Yup. There are numerous examples of the founders passing laws that appear to directly contradict the constitution. The Coast Guard traces its enforcement authority to the Revenue Service Act of 1790, which allows US officers unfettered access to vessels in US waters without a warrant. This law has been consistently upheld because judges make the lazy argument that, since it was passed by the same Congress that wrote the 4th amendment, it’s obviously compatible with the 4th amendment.

A far more likely explanation is that it was a new government based on a new constitution and everyone was still figuring out how it all worked and, in the process, they made some mistakes. Now we’re stuck with bad laws because of founder worship. The founders weren’t perfect and they didn’t create a perfect system. It’s time we stopped acting like they did.

The bill of rights was grudgingly accepted by the federalists.

It makes more sense to view the intent of the bill of rights from the lenses of the anti-federalists that actually founded them rather than the founders in general.

> Also in 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which violated the First Amendment. The simple fact that a Congress included many Founders does not necessarily imply that its acts were all in compliance with the Constitution those same Founders wrote or concurred with years before.

Or they were not 'absolutists' in regards to the Constitution they themselves wrote, and understood some play / slop was needed in interpretation and implementation.

Or they were opportunists, and used the Federalist majority to pass legislation intended to, among other things, silence anti-Federalist publications.

The federalists also intentionally slowed and interfered with the mail of anti-federalists to get an upper hand, at a time when it was crucial for their organization.

Ultimately, the federalists won. The last kiss of death was circa 1930s, when you see that before you needed constitutional amendments to regulate child labor (never passed) or to federally regulate intrastate alcohol (passed), after that they just totally dispensed with any of the constitutional provisions made to the anti-federalists and just rammed it all down our throats under the guise of interstate commerce.

This is why the civil rights act in the 19th century was found unconstitutional, but the mid 20th century version with many of the same provisions magically was. Or why they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, but magically did not need an amendment to pass the controlled substance act.

Really had some top-notch statesmen back then.-

... I sometimes wonder by virtue of what happy confluence these forefathers came to be so apt, that is to say, what precise and fortunate combination of personal, professional and vital circumstances yielded such people.-

Reply on news.ycombinator.com