In theory, the Constitution was written and ratified in order to establish a limited government that respected the rights of individuals. It proposed the construction of a complex, republican government that could accommodate the random passions and momentary irrationality of the masses, and severely limit their ability arrogate to themselves, through redistributionary taxation, the wealth of the rich. The constitution was expressly designed in such a way that it would not only create a small government, but keep it small, through all the ages. As James Madison wrote, "The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages." If you don't believe any of this, you're wrong. Sorry. Read the Federalist Papers. Anyway, my point is this: I really do not understand how conservatives reconcile their love of the Constitution with the fact that its ratification has led to the creation of the largest government in the history of human civilization. By every measurable standard, it has been a complete failure in its original goal of keeping the government small. If you don't believe any of this, then I advise you to do two things: 1) Stop complaining about the national debt. Either it is a problem or it isn't. If it is, the Constitution has a failed. If it isn't, then don't complain about it. 2) Got to www.usdebtclock.org. Any serious examination of our national debt should lead you to conclude that the government has grown to an unsustainable level. Most conservatives acknowledge this fact. But their answer to the problem is as curious as it is constant: We need to return to government that is "limited by the Constitution." Why would we want to do that? It seems to me that the Constitution could not prevent us from getting to this point. What makes you think that it will be successful a second time around? Thanks for reading. I look forward to hearing what you all think (especially conservatives).