The Future of Limited Government

[JeffWartman]

So, then tell all the "small gov't" people that includes Abortion, Gay Marriage, and illegal gov't wiretapping cause they have no problem letting gov't regulate those

That's the central point of the essay.

 

[JeffWartman]

Its an idea that has little support because it doesnt work.

I understand it's an established fact that you aren't very educated in history, but this country was founded as a limited constitutional republic, with power derived from the consent of the governed.

 

[JeffWartman]

Our representative form of government is a democracy.

Within some extreme limits, the Constitution doesn't necessitate any specific role for government. The major constraints that were believed to be part of the Constitution were eviscerated during the 30's and 40's.

The Supreme Court can't be bullied into doing things contrary to the Constitution. According to the Constitution, as it was interpreted by the Constitution in 1803, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of determing what the Constitution means. If it determines something is constitutional, it necessarily is.

Representative Republic describes our system much more accurately. There's a reason our founders used the term Republic so often.

Of course the Constitution necessitates a form of government. It's a limited constitutional republic in which some powers are delegated to the federal government and the other powers are reserved for the state/local governments and the people. This can be found in Amendment X.

You are making a logical fallacy in your last paragraph. You state, "According to the Constitution, as it was interpreted by the Constitution in 1803, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of determing what the Constitution means."

Well, no. Not "according to the Constitution." In order be "according to the Constitution" it has to say that in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is given no jurisdiction to interpret constitutionality. This isn't to say judicial review isn't useful, but that fact is indisputable. It's not "according to the Constitution" because it's completely absent from the Constitution. Get it?

Like I said -- I'm not against judicial review. But to assert that judical review is given to the court "according to the Constitution" is ignorant of the Constitution itself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Our system of government is a Constitutional Republic.

Our government is meant to be limited by the Constitution.

 

[michiganFats]

The problem with appealing to the masses for limited government is that the masses have never been for it. The only reason we had limited government in this country at all was the commitment of a small political minority to make it happen, and even among the Founders there was disagreement as to the optimal scope of the federal government.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

I understand it's an established fact that you aren't very educated in history, but this country was founded as a limited constitutional republic, with power derived from the consent of the governed.

Well I am an I ask, "How did the Articles of Confederation do?"

Jefferson and Hamilton were both wrong as it pertains to today, the answer is somewhere in the middle

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I am an I ask, "How did the Articles of Confederation do?"

Jefferson and Hamilton were both wrong as it pertains to today, the answer is somewhere in the middle

Some people felt that the Articles of Confederation didn't give enough power to the federal government, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison predominately.

Jefferson felt that the federal government only had the power to do what was strictly authorized by the Constitution, which is not "wrong as it pertains to today."

 

[midcan5]

Limited government is in the eye of the beholder. Who for instance wants poison in their foods, bridges that fall down, health-care that kills you, neighbors who steal your goods, companies that treat you like slaves, financial ponzi institutions, air that kills your children, no way to correct a wrong, no laws, imprisonment because we disagree....even your ability to ask this question is a role of government as without a strong centralized government of checks and balances and law nothing would work well. Delusional people who think government is the source of all trouble forget it is people in all their good and bad who need government and make government good or not so good.


"Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing." Amartya Sen

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Limited government is in the eye of the beholder. Who for instance wants poison in their foods, bridges that fall down, health-care that kills you, neighbors who steal your goods, companies that treat you like slaves, financial ponzi institutions, air that kills your children, no way to correct a wrong, no laws, imprisonment because we disagree....even your ability to ask this question is a role of government as without a strong centralized government of checks and balances and law nothing would work well. Delusional people who think government is the source of all trouble forget it is people in all their good and bad who need government and make government good or not so good.

"Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing." Amartya Sen

Where in the world do you get "no laws" or "imprisonment because we disagree" from limited government? In fact, where do you get any of that nonsense from limited government?

 

[midcan5]

Where in the world do you get "no laws" or "imprisonment because we disagree" from limited government? In fact, where do you get any of that nonsense from limited government?

While I hate to say it, you only have to study the last administration to find both.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I hate to say it, you only have to study the last administration to find both.

And you believe the Bush administration was a limited government?

 

[Diuretic]

While I hate to say it, you only have to study the last administration to find both.

But that wasn't limited government was it? It was expansive, intrusive and authoritarian government wasn't it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But that wasn't limited government was it? It was expansive, intrusive and authoritarian government wasn't it?

You're correct, there was nothing "limited" about the Bush administration.

 

[Diuretic]

You're correct, there was nothing "limited" about the Bush administration.

Only the rhetoric perhaps.

But BushCheney did his job (okay ancient history I know), his backers were rewarded.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Some people felt that the Articles of Confederation didn't give enough power to the federal government, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison predominately.

Jefferson felt that the federal government only had the power to do what was strictly authorized by the Constitution, which is not "wrong as it pertains to today."

The Constitution was only a shell of what it is today with the extra 15-18 amendments since so that can't totally apply

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution was only a shell of what it is today with the extra 15-18 amendments since so that can't totally apply

The amendments have changed the Constitution and added to it over the years, and that's all well and good. However, the federal government still does not have the authority to do something that is not expressly stated in the Constitution.

 

[editec]

A superpower nation of 300,000 million people needs a government that isn't small.

I know many of you folks really imagine that you'd like to live in the 18th century, but seriously, you wouldn't like it all that much.

Tht being said what we'd all seriously like is a just enough government to make things work and a government that actually gave flying fuck about the people paying the bills.

Neither party appears to be able to give us either of those things, far as I can tell.

The problem isn't government, the problem is BAD government.

 

[LeoLady]

Actually, no. First, we don't live in a democracy. We have a representative Republic. Second, the social contract we agreed to be governed under is embodied in the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution describes the role of government. It isn't to be decided willy-nilly every time we vote. If we decide we do not like the way things work, a means is provided to change the relationship we have with government.

Where we have erred is that from time to time we allowed occupants of the certain roles in our government to bully other parts into doing things that were contrary to the Constitution. From experience, it appears that once these extra-Constitutional things have been done, it is very difficult if not impossible to get the genie back in the bottle.

Very well said. The founders of the constitution wrote the constitution based on a Republicanism government (which dates back to the ancient Greeks)- hence, a representative Republic, just as you stated. Most individuals, however, believe we have a Democracy. And as for these extra-Constitutional things that are being done... it seems the government will do whatever it pleases. Whatta ya do?

 

[JeffWartman]

Where in the world do you get "no laws" or "imprisonment because we disagree" from limited government? In fact, where do you get any of that nonsense from limited government?

While I hate to say it, you only have to study the last administration to find both.

Why would you study an administration that believed in increasing government to find something about limited government?

 

[Diuretic]

"the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." (Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6)

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you are - you have a representative democracy and a constitutional republic.

I have to say I find the "republic" part of it very interesting because as a philosphy (I think this has already been pointed out in the thread) it has an ancient lineage and the mix of classical republican theory with the idea of representative democracy is brilliant. To think that the Founding Fathers came up with this in the late 18th Century is remarkable, but then they were very well educated and intelligent men.