After reading a couple of posts on the "your philosophy of government" thread, I was reminded of how I tire greatly of seeing anyone on any side of any debate trying to invoke (or more like hijack) the supposed "intentions" of the founders of our country as a means of supporting their point of view.
First off, the idea that our founding fathers had a unified idea of what was right for the country is absurd. Even more absurd is to state that any point of view in contemporary politics somehow represents "the founders' intention." This is an impossible claim to make, seeing as how the founders were largely just as divided and combative and argumentative (as well as generally corrupt) as our current politicians are, and they were largely looking out for their own interests ahead of the country's, and could barely agree on anything. In short, if you don't like our current politicians, you really shouldn't think much of the founding fathers either. You can appreciate the efforts they made to found the country we currently live in, but the personality cult that many now have dedicated to them is silly and not productive. Even less productive is trying to state that a deeply divided group of men would somehow uniformly support any political point of view.
And even IF they were a harmonious group of noble statesmen who always looked out for the country's best interests, it would still be pointless to try to invoke their beliefs in regards to a contemporary political issue. Comparing the world they lived in to the world we live in now is truly like comparing an apple to an orange. We don't know one way or another what they would think of today's issues, because most of today's issues didn't even exist in their time. This fact makes trying to prop up your personal beliefs as "the founder's intent" look even more foolish.
Finally, one more aside...if many of the founding fathers had their way, you wouldn't even have a right to vote. Many of them thought that the general public was too lazy and stupid to be trusted with choosing their leaders, and thought that letting the aristocrats (i.e. themselves) choose the leaders was a better idea. Based on how uneducated the general voting public has become today, it makes me think they actually might have been somewhat correct. But it does make you feel pretty ridiculous about holding up the example of our founding fathers as shining beacons of democracy like so many seem apt to do, no?
In short, go ahead and stand up for your opinions on their own merit instead of lazily trying to slap the founders' seal of approval on them as a means of discouraging an opposing viewpoint.