Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:
The nature and the character of the Constitution is to protect individual LIBERTIES from governmental interference. And that is why there is a right of privacy that logically flows from the Bill of Rights. As for Madison, again, intersting in terms of history, it isn't law. As you know, the caselaw would better set forth the limits that exist or do not.
I don't think you can ignore that the Constitution sets up a system of government. And, while it is protective of individual liberty, it is not nearly as protective as what it replaced. Remember the arguments of the Anti-federalists, as Kevin has been pointing out. These new and increased powers of the central government gave them no comfort at all. Indeed, the only way the Constitution was ratified was the promise of an actual Bill of Rights.
I'm only citing Madison for the limited purpose of explaining the actual mechanics of the sentence that he wrote. I'm not citing him for any legal purpose or for his view on what the law is. In my view, some are guilty on here of improperly construing this sentence and reading it in a manner that was never intend nor could it properly be read that way. In this particular case, we have Madison defending the actual construction of the the sentence against the anti-federalist charges that it give the central government too much power (power that is now claimed by Centrist and Nik). I think for the limited purpose of clarifying any misconception concerning how the sentence should be read, Madison's explanation should be given great weight.