The Future of Limited Government

[ReillyT]

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.

Consider representative republic as within a larger Venn diagram with democracy. "Represenative republic" is certainly more specific than "democracy", whether or not it is more accurate is open to debate - although it would be a silly one.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution because the Supreme Court says the Consitution makes it the final aribiter of the meaning of the Constitution and this must be abided because the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the final say because they say so.

Yes, I realise that the reasoning is circular, but we have accepted it for over 200 years. At this point, it is clear that the USSC really is the final say of Constitution interpretation. This being the case, one can say that it is because the Constitution makes it thus - at least that would be what the USSC has said, and they are the final arbiter of this issue.

To the original point, the Constitution sets up a form of government and divides the powers between branches and governments (and the people). However, it does not proscribe, except within extreme limits, a specfic role for government. Government may be laissez faire and devoid of social protection or it may proscribe a heavily regulated form of capitalism with expansive social protections and private property subject to confiscation (with compensation) in order to advance community goals.

 

[Diuretic]

That makes sense. The Venn diagram idea I can see in my mind's eye.

 

[xsited1]

The Future of Limited Government.
By: Jeff Wartman
http://jeffwartman.com/the-future-of...ed-government/

Limited government goes against human nature. The moment somebody proposes some big-government program and gets it passed, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. More and more people will want these 'entitlement' programs and there will be more governmental employees added to the public payroll. Government workers would never vote for a limited-government politician because they wouldn't want to lose their job, neither would the recipients of these programs. The US reached the point of no return at least 100 years ago.

 

[Diuretic]

There's no such thing as "big" or "small" government. There's profligate government, there's incompetent government and there's prudent and competent government. The limits of government are what is being referred to. Exactly where government steps back and lets the private sector take over is what it's about. Some people want governments to build roads using taxpayers money. Some people want non-government concerns to build roads and then charge a fee to users. I'm only using that as a metaphor for the difference.

 

[xsited1]

There's no such thing as "big" or "small" government. There's profligate government, there's incompetent government and there's prudent and competent government. The limits of government are what is being referred to. Exactly where government steps back and lets the private sector take over is what it's about. Some people want governments to build roads using taxpayers money. Some people want non-government concerns to build roads and then charge a fee to users. I'm only using that as a metaphor for the difference.

Has anybody ever told you that you're great at pointing out the obvious? Yes, that's the point. Glad you got it.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, there's no such thing as "big" government or "small" government. Thanks for taking the point. Don't use either term again. Much appreciated.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, there's no such thing as "big" government or "small" government. Thanks for taking the point. Don't use either term again. Much appreciated.

How about "limited" government?

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, there's no such thing as "big" government or "small" government. Thanks for taking the point. Don't use either term again. Much appreciated.

How about "limited" government?

Yeah that too!