Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 90.9%
  • No

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • I do not know

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
55,421
17,648
2,260
North Carolina
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.
 
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.

While they might not have envisioned the monster that emerged after the war to suppress Southern independence, they destroyed limited government by dumping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution.
 
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.

While they might not have envisioned the monster that emerged after the war to suppress Southern independence, they destroyed limited government by dumping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution.

Ooooohh... right... the Constitution... that thing our illustrious elected officials in Washington wipe their ass with.
 
As pointed out in another thread some of them did, some of them didn't. Alexander Hamilton is certainly considered a founder, and he came up with the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution. Not to mention Hamilton and Madison dumping the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution, which the Anti-Federalists correctly identified as destructive to liberty and the idea of limited government.
 
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.

While they might not have envisioned the monster that emerged after the war to suppress Southern independence, they destroyed limited government by dumping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution.

Ooooohh... right... the Constitution... that thing our illustrious elected officials in Washington wipe their ass with.

Its hardly a new phenomenon, its been going on since the final ratification vote.
 
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.

While they might not have envisioned the monster that emerged after the war to suppress Southern independence, they destroyed limited government by dumping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution.

Yep. And from that sprang the arguments and the publishing of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for the ratification of the Constitution.
 
While they might not have envisioned the monster that emerged after the war to suppress Southern independence, they destroyed limited government by dumping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution.

Ooooohh... right... the Constitution... that thing our illustrious elected officials in Washington wipe their ass with.

Its hardly a new phenomenon, its been going on since the final ratification vote.

It may not be new, but it's definitely been taken to new heights in this day and age.
 
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.

That is correct. The ONLY power granted to the federal government was outlined in the constitution.

Whatever was left was a state or local government's responsibility.
 
As a matter of fact they did. They argued that no Bill of rights was needed specifying limits to the Government since ONLY those FEW specific powers granted to the Government were available. They further argued that few powers belonged to the Federal Government under the Constitution and that many more powers were left to the States.

That is correct. The ONLY power granted to the federal government was outlined in the constitution.

Whatever was left was a state or local government's responsibility.

There's a lot of stuff that stems from the Constitution that's not in the Constitution. The ability of the executive branch to create agencies is in the Constitution, but the agencies themselves are not. A lot of the shit that conservatives like to rail on...has a basis in case law or constitutional doctrine that's not in the damn thing.

The FF were definitely afraid of too much power at the top...but they created a centralized government for a reason, lads.
 
What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded
 
What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Doesn't matter. Because society has changed does that mean the principles of limited government should be abolished? It is the core of this Republic.

What happens when the foundation of a structure is undermined?

Same thing applies here.

Weak argument RW.
 
As pointed out in another thread some of them did, some of them didn't. Alexander Hamilton is certainly considered a founder, and he came up with the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution. Not to mention Hamilton and Madison dumping the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution, which the Anti-Federalists correctly identified as destructive to liberty and the idea of limited government.

Kudos for recognizing the Founders weren't a hive mind. Debates over the extent of federal power go back to the very beginning and positions sometimes flipped between the parties depending on what was politically expedient at the moment (see: the strict constructionist Democratic-Republicans using the general welfare clause to argue for the constitutionality of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase).

There aren't "right" answers to this one, folks, that's why we have elections every two years.
 
Last edited:
What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Doesn't matter. Because society has changed does that mean the principles of limited government should be abolished? It is the core of this Republic.

What happens when the foundation of a structure is undermined?

Same thing applies here.

Weak argument RW.

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T
 

Forum List

Back
Top