Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

[Montrovant]

I'm always amazed at how confident people can be that they not only know the intent of the founders, but that they were a group completely unified in their vision of what the country should be.

Hrm, maybe this is a more accurate picture of Madison and Hamilton?

 

[rightwinger]

You and anyone that beliefs that crap are treasonous bastards to stupid to breed.

Yea...me and 300 million flag waving Americans

That is why you and your buddies got your walking papers in November dumb fuck. Te Constitution allows for change, THROUGH the AMENDMENT process not through judges creating whole new meanings to what each power is.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Do you have any realization of how difficult and lengthy the amendment process is? We have only had 17 amendments passed since the signing of the Constitution. Hundreds of others have withered on the vine. Your concept that an amendment must be passed every time the Constitution is interpreted would bring our nation to a halt.

You don't think something is within the scope of the Constitution? Have the court decide. That is what has worked for 200+ years

 

[rightwinger]

The Glenn Beck conservatives abhor our court system because some rulings go against their doctrine. Courts do not always get things right (Amendments don't always get things right either). Our Court system may be liberal at one period of time and conservative at another.
The swinging from left to right and then back is what ensures over time that the court gets it right.

If it makes you feel any better, the Supreme Court is now decidedly to the right

 

[Sunni Man]

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

That is pure nonsense and not proof of any such thing.

Of course it is. Here, read.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In no way does the preamble of the Constitution prove that the founders wanted a government with few limits.

 

[Sunni Man]

If it makes you feel any better, the Supreme Court is now decidedly to the right

Ya, to the right of Karl Marx.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In no way does it prove that the founders wanted a government with few limits.

Sunni Man, you lost this argument the day the Constitution was ratified by two-thirds of the states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

There is no General welfare clause.

 

[rightwinger]

If it makes you feel any better, the Supreme Court is now decidedly to the right

Ya, to the right of Karl Marx.

Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

Which of those is a liberal?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

There is no General welfare clause.

200 years of Judicial decisions beg to differ

 

[Common Sense]

Those proponents of limited government did not believe that a standing army should be kept during peacetime. Also, they believed that perpetual war was deleterious to liberty. As far as their knowledge of a superpower government, they had only to look to the British Empire as a negative example

i think its interesting that no one here has even mentioned the civil war. most people believe that the civil war was simply fought over slavery. but it was also fought over the states wanting more power than the federal government.

the southern states wanted most of the powers of government to rest with the states, while the northern states were in support of a strong central government. this is also at the core of this debate. by the north winning this war, it enshrined the idea of a strong federal government as the back bone of our country. there are many arguments as to why this is needed.

you can look at modern europe and the european union as good example of this. since we are a collection of states that fall under the flag of one nation, there is the argument of the need to have broad overall encompassing laws that govern the whole. things like free trade & interstate commerce, interstate travel, general rights and portability all go into this core argument. these are all things that we take for granted but in europe prior to 1993, traveling between countries and doing business was much more difficult because at the time each individual country had it own trade laws and regulations. this restricted the flow of people, goods and services. when the EU came to power, it simply did what the US had done before and made trade and travel much easier. thus helping to improve the economy of all if its members.

now the genius that is the US consitution, left one perfect answer to every problem. that is that the constitution can be changed at any point and time by the people. now if "the people" want to limit the scope of government then we are allowed to do so. this though would required an amendment to be written and ratified by the states. should this be done? i will not speak for the whole but I can see some positives as well as negatives in limiting the scope of the federal government. maybe that should be a new thread.

A limited government need not lack strength. It is simply limited in what it can do to the people under it's authority

a government that lacks authority also lack strength. you can not have one without the other

 

[beowolfe]

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.

Then why did they immediately turn around and pass a bill of rights. You sound confused.

 

[Greenbeard]

There is no General welfare clause.

Apart from the bit where Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare?

 

[Sunni Man]

The term "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers had a whole different connotation than the way "welfare" is used today.

 

[Common Sense]

The term "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers had a whole different connotation than the way "welfare" is used today.

can you define what the FF meant by welfare?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The term "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers had a whole different connotation than the way "welfare" is used today.

can you define what the FF meant by welfare?

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

 

[JakeStarkey]

The term "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers had a whole different connotation than the way "welfare" is used today.

can you define what the FF meant by welfare?

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

Thanks, Shakles. Now give us the full source, please, so that we can read it for ourselves.

 

[Common Sense]

The term "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers had a whole different connotation than the way "welfare" is used today.

can you define what the FF meant by welfare?

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

why then was the constitution not amended by the FF who thought that this power could be abused? it was obviously a concern of at least Madison, but if you do any research, there were actually 55 people whom worked on the constitution, 42 attended most of the meeting, but only 39 signed it. so in a sense the constitution was not unanimous. 92% or 70% depending on how you look at it. it simply false to believe that every FF had the same exact view on how government should be operated. i believe that this is why they made it possible for the constitution to be an ever changing document. which its people can review modify and change at any time.


"The Constitution was finished on September 12, 1787. Of the 55 delegates, 42 attended most of the meetings, and 39 delegates (and the attesting secretary) actually signed the Constitution. Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign, due in part to the lack of a bill of rights.

 

[Bern80]

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

That is pure nonsense and not proof of any such thing.

No. It proves you don't understand written english. I guess the mistake the framers made was assuming people understood basic rules of punctuation and grammar.

 

[Intense]

can you define what the FF meant by welfare?

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

Thanks, Shakles. Now give us the full source, please, so that we can read it for ourselves.

Your knowledge should not be limited to what others here provide Jake.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Treason is thwarting the intent and power of the Constitution. Anyone that thinks they can just get a Judge to change the meaning of the Constitution is committing treason. Any Judge that thinks they can just change the meaning of the Constitution is committing treason.