antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
A centralized government may very well do that, Bern. We have seen two centuries where state governments certainly did abuse their citizens. I am far more concerned about the far right wacks in my party and what they would do if they got power than I am of the feds right now.
But all that is a glam on the OP. No, the Founders as a group wanted a strong central goveernment so that banking and commerce and interstate regulations were standarized for all players.
i'd only go as far as that they were split on the extent of central government's strength. the semantics of strong or weak and central vs state throw this discussion off. as far as personal liberties go, i dont think many of the founders felt that state rights were protective of such, and were not confederate on that basis. they sought to have a central government which could make protections uniformed across the states - one of the major themes in the constitution. for others, but i would argue fewer delegates, there was the issue of empowerment of state governments. this sentiment resurged after the ratification, having left a sour taste in the mouth of the parties to the articles of confederation.
interestingly, bern80 closed his rant referring to deference of unspecified rights to the states, where the constitution defers to states and individuals. the alternative perspective which many of the founders held, maintains that the US is a protector of rights from states. such is the function of the SCOTUS and fed circuits on many occasions: superceding the judgement of states once determined they've demured their constituent's rights to their own.