Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Exactly.

They sit there and say "Well we should just follow the constitution" But then we a judge or an amendment agrees with an argument about the constitution, its activist judges!!

They're funny people. They left it vague so that society in the future can decide what is best for them. They also made it extremely hard to get amendments and repeal amendments.

Their is no law against Murder in the constitution, should that be allowed? Just because its not in constitution doesn't mean we can't legislate that.

When it's not in the Constitution it means the federal government can't legislate it. There are 50 state governments, however.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Exactly.

They sit there and say "Well we should just follow the constitution" But then we a judge or an amendment agrees with an argument about the constitution, its activist judges!!

They're funny people. They left it vague so that society in the future can decide what is best for them. They also made it extremely hard to get amendments and repeal amendments.

Their is no law against Murder in the constitution, should that be allowed? Just because its not in constitution doesn't mean we can't legislate that.

When it's not in the Constitution it means the federal government can't legislate it. There are 50 state governments, however.

Shhhhish.... you're not supposed to tell little secerts like that.

 

[Agit8r]

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

Exactly.

They sit there and say "Well we should just follow the constitution" But then we a judge or an amendment agrees with an argument about the constitution, its activist judges!!

They're funny people. They left it vague so that society in the future can decide what is best for them. They also made it extremely hard to get amendments and repeal amendments.

Their is no law against Murder in the constitution, should that be allowed? Just because its not in constitution doesn't mean we can't legislate that.

When it's not in the Constitution it means the federal government can't legislate it. There are 50 state governments, however.

that's sort of an oversimplification. What about lynching laws? the civil rights act?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saulreb is a kick: doesn't understand the Constitution, is uneducated, does not comprehend that we have a democratic republic, loves racism, loves sexism, and loves homophobia.

bigrebnc, do you realize just how sick you are in your head and your soul?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Exactly.

They sit there and say "Well we should just follow the constitution" But then we a judge or an amendment agrees with an argument about the constitution, its activist judges!!

They're funny people. They left it vague so that society in the future can decide what is best for them. They also made it extremely hard to get amendments and repeal amendments.

Their is no law against Murder in the constitution, should that be allowed? Just because its not in constitution doesn't mean we can't legislate that.

When it's not in the Constitution it means the federal government can't legislate it. There are 50 state governments, however.

that's sort of an oversimplification. What about lynching laws? the civil rights act?

Unconstitutional at the federal level. However, lynching is murder, and would therefore be covered by state constitutions.

 

[mattskramer]

Some people such as yourself need to be reminded what the true intent of the founders of this country were.

Why? They intended some things that most people today see as good and some things that people see as bad. I guess that it would make for good story-time reading.

They condoned slavery, they prohibited women from voting.

Which proves they are human and no human could write such a powerful document as the Constitution, without a higher power guiding them.

They were leaders that wrote a constitution that has survived since its ratification in 1788. The United States Constitution is the world's longest surviving written charter of government. I think that this is due in large part to its flexibility. Anyway, its survivability does not prove that a higher power was guiding the founders.

Thankfully, they provided us with a flexible “breathing” Constitution that can be amended and interpreted to suit modern times.

So what right do you wish to amend?
The 1st? 4th?
5th?

I would amend a few of the Amendments for the sake of clarification. For instance, the first amendment says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If my religion prohibits me from supporting a military, am I free from paying taxes?

The second amendment says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What is an "arm"? May I have several fully automatic machine guns and bazookas? May I have a tank? May I have an ICBM if I can afford one?

 

[Agit8r]

When it's not in the Constitution it means the federal government can't legislate it. There are 50 state governments, however.

that's sort of an oversimplification. What about lynching laws? the civil rights act?

Unconstitutional at the federal level. However, lynching is murder, and would therefore be covered by state constitutions.

*cough-ignorant-ahem*


"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that's sort of an oversimplification. What about lynching laws? the civil rights act?

Unconstitutional at the federal level. However, lynching is murder, and would therefore be covered by state constitutions.

*cough-ignorant-ahem*


"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I guess my ignorance is showing again, because I can't see exactly what it is I'm supposedly ignorant of.

 

[Agit8r]

Anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights act are insuring EQUAL PROTECTION (like the 14th amendment says) by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION (also like the 14th Amendment says) nothing unconstitutional there

...except maybe in Aqua Buddha world

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

I know you know this, but the fact that anyone would feel they have to ask that question is laughable. of course they did. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to spell out what powers the Fed has, and thereby limit them to that power alone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights act are insuring EQUAL PROTECTION (like the 14th amendment says) by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION (also like the 14th Amendment says) nothing unconstitutional there

...except maybe in Aqua Buddha world

Anti-lynching laws are redundant, as there are already anti-murder laws on the books as I already stated. As for the Civil Rights Act, as Rand pointed out, telling people who they have to serve on their own property is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment declares that "No State... etc.. etc.." Meaning that no state can pass a law that says black people can't eat at the same restaurant as white people, but it does not say that people can't exclude whomever they want from their own private property.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

I know you know this, but the fact that anyone would feel they have to ask that question is laughable. of course they did. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to spell out what powers the Fed has, and thereby limit them to that power alone.

so, if I understand what you are saying, you want to disband the CIA, the FBI... really, all of the DHS. Stop all overseas contingencies. Remove the US from NATO...

 

[Agit8r]

Anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights act are insuring EQUAL PROTECTION (like the 14th amendment says) by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION (also like the 14th Amendment says) nothing unconstitutional there

...except maybe in Aqua Buddha world

Anti-lynching laws are redundant, as there are already anti-murder laws on the books as I already stated. As for the Civil Rights Act, as Rand pointed out, telling people who they have to serve on their own property is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment declares that "No State... etc.. etc.." Meaning that no state can pass a law that says black people can't eat at the same restaurant as white people, but it does not say that people can't exclude whomever they want from their own private property.

What authority licenses a business? What authority charters a corporation?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights act are insuring EQUAL PROTECTION (like the 14th amendment says) by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION (also like the 14th Amendment says) nothing unconstitutional there

...except maybe in Aqua Buddha world

Anti-lynching laws are redundant, as there are already anti-murder laws on the books as I already stated. As for the Civil Rights Act, as Rand pointed out, telling people who they have to serve on their own property is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment declares that "No State... etc.. etc.." Meaning that no state can pass a law that says black people can't eat at the same restaurant as white people, but it does not say that people can't exclude whomever they want from their own private property.

What authority licenses a business? What authority charters a corporation?

What authority gives said "authority" the authority to require a license or charter? Not the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some people such as yourself need to be reminded what the true intent of the founders of this country were.

Why? They intended some things that most people today see as good and some things that people see as bad. I guess that it would make for good story-time reading.

They condoned slavery, they prohibited women from voting.

They were leaders that wrote a constitution that has survived since its ratification in 1788. The United States Constitution is the world's longest surviving written charter of government. I think that this is due in large part to its flexibility. Anyway, its survivability does not prove that a higher power was guiding the founders.

Thankfully, they provided us with a flexible “breathing” Constitution that can be amended and interpreted to suit modern times.

So what right do you wish to amend?
The 1st? 4th?
5th?

I would amend a few of the Amendments for the sake of clarification. For instance, the first amendment says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If my religion prohibits me from supporting a military, am I free from paying taxes?

The second amendment says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What is an "arm"? May I have several fully automatic machine guns and bazookas? May I have a tank? May I have an ICBM if I can afford one?

The second amendment says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What is an "arm"? May I have several fully automatic machine guns and bazookas? May I have a tank? May I have an ICBM if I can afford one

The word arms was used as a military term for firearms

I would amend a few of the Amendments for the sake of clarification. For instance, the first amendment says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If my religion prohibits me from supporting a military, am I free from paying taxes?

No because you need the service to protect your ass. You are paying for protection. You do not have to serve but you do have to pay for the protection

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Little Saulreb is a kick: doesn't understand the Constitution, is uneducated, does not comprehend that we have a democratic republic, loves racism, loves sexism, and loves homophobia.

bigrebnc, do you realize just how sick you are in your head and your soul?

The goofball thinks to highly of himself, I guess thats how all statist are though. Hey goofball if the government does take away our rights unless you are high up on the food chain you will be stuck just like the rest of the people that you look down upon. Wake up stupid, but if you are high up on the food chain I will or someone like me will be coming for YOU asswipe. When that event happens

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For the Goofball
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of it's citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law
Constitutional Republic vs, Democracy | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

 

[gautama]

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.

Yep, FREE THE ENEMY OF AMERICA !!!!

Oblige the fucking American LIEberrhoids !!!!!

 

[Intense]

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.

Hamilton was to our Federal Republic what Benedict Arnold was to the Revolution.

 

[Greenbeard]

Hamilton was to our Federal Republic what Benedict Arnold was to the Revolution.

President Washington tended to favor Hamilton over Jefferson on these kinds of philosophy-policy disputes within his Cabinet (see the First Bank of the United States, debt assumption, the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, particularly Hamilton's Treasury Department, etc). What does that make George Washington?