Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

[The T]

The limited government mantra is just another interpretation in itself.

Eh?

So what's wrong with allowing people to be who and what they are and Government staying for the most part out of the fray?

Not a friend to true liberty nor law and order I take it?

 

[The T]

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

Doesn't matter. Because society has changed does that mean the principles of limited government should be abolished? It is the core of this Republic.

What happens when the foundation of a structure is undermined?

Same thing applies here.

Weak argument RW.

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Go read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...they are the very core arguments for and against ratifying the Constitution.

You guys want intent? it's there. Take the time to study.

And yes, RW, *YOU* remain weak in your argument(s).

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't matter. Because society has changed does that mean the principles of limited government should be abolished? It is the core of this Republic.

What happens when the foundation of a structure is undermined?

Same thing applies here.

Weak argument RW.

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Go read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...they are the very core arguments for and against ratifying the Constitution.

You guys want intent? it's there. Take the time to study.

And yes, RW, *YOU* remain weak in your argument(s).

Sorry pal

That is not part of the Constitution. If they wanted "limited government" in the Constitution, it would be in there.

200 +years of legal precident shows you are wrong

 

[shintao]

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.

Coming from the rich side of town, I am sure the founders did not want the common folk having any rights at all, and limiting power to the people was the perfect way to achieve that end.

 

[Greenbeard]

Go read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...

I'm curious about something. Clearly you know that the bulk of the Federalist papers were written by Hamilton and Madison (with Jay picking up a few others). So are we to assume their thoughts on the Constitution are more valid than the interpretations of others? And, if so, how do you reconcile the fact that they had pretty disparate interpretations of federal power, to the point that the first two political parties in our history coalesced around their divergent views? Would you just fall back on the classic "well, Hamilton doesn't count"?

 

[Sunni Man]

The Constitution is a document designed to limit the powers of government; not to encourage is growth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Go read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...

I'm curious about something. Clearly you know that the bulk of the Federalist papers were written by Hamilton and Madison (with Jay picking up a few others). So are we to assume their thoughts on the Constitution are more valid than the interpretations of others? And, if so, how do you reconcile the fact that they had pretty disparate interpretations of federal power, to the point that the first two political parties in our history coalesced around their divergent views? Would you just fall back on the classic "well, Hamilton doesn't count"?

It's not that Hamilton doesn't count, it's that Hamilton changed his tune completely once the Constitution was ratified.

 

[The T]

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Go read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...they are the very core arguments for and against ratifying the Constitution.

You guys want intent? it's there. Take the time to study.

And yes, RW, *YOU* remain weak in your argument(s).

Sorry pal

That is not part of the Constitution. If they wanted "limited government" in the Constitution, it would be in there.

200 +years of legal precident shows you are wrong

But it was the crux...the ROOT of the arguement(s).

As to your 'Legal' precident? I assume that you mean written LAW?

Fine. Just because the LAW exists and remains unchallanged doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. It just means no one has challanged it in the Courrts (You know? The third branch) Of Government.

In my view there are lots of Laws that I think go beyond the scope of the Constitution, and have subverted the Constitution, and the Amendment process.

In any case? The arguemments contained within the Federalists/Anti-Federalists were the very core of reasoning to intent...again.

It is my considered opinion that Federalism won out in the very idea of the limited scope of the Federal Government with most power residing with the people and the STATES...

...Which has also been basterdized.

And prcisely WHY we are having this dicussion as they did even back then.

Just because these people are long dead and gone doesn't mean that their ideas are of any less merit just because society has chosen to take a dunk in the sewer of liberalism means that modern liberals can take us on their trip around toward the bottom of the bowl with them.

 

[Greenbeard]

Fine. Just because the LAW exists and remains unchallanged doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. It just means no one has challanged it in the Courrts (You know? The third branch) Of Government.

Er, I have to ask: where in the Constitution do you see the power of judicial review explicitly granted to the courts?

 

[rightwinger]

Go read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...they are the very core arguments for and against ratifying the Constitution.

You guys want intent? it's there. Take the time to study.

And yes, RW, *YOU* remain weak in your argument(s).

Sorry pal

That is not part of the Constitution. If they wanted "limited government" in the Constitution, it would be in there.

200 +years of legal precident shows you are wrong

But it was the crux...the ROOT of the arguement(s).

As to your 'Legal' precident? I assume that you mean written LAW?

Fine. Just because the LAW exists and remains unchallanged doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. It just means no one has challanged it in the Courrts (You know? The third branch) Of Government.

In my view there are lots of Laws that I think go beyond the scope of the Constitution, and have subverted the Constitution, and the Amendment process.

In any case? The arguemments contained within the Federalists/Anti-Federalists were the very core of reasoning to intent...again.

It is my considered opinion that Federalism won out in the very idea of the limited scope of the Federal Government with most power residing with the people and the STATES...

...Which has also been basterdized.

And prcisely WHY we are having this dicussion as they did even back then.

Just because these people are long dead and gone doesn't mean that their ideas are of any less merit just because society has chosen to take a dunk in the sewer of liberalism means that modern liberals can take us on their trip around toward the bottom of the bowl with them.

Fine. Just because the LAW exists and remains unchallanged doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. It just means no one has challanged it in the Courrts (You know? The third branch) Of Government.

Until a law is ruled to be unconstitutional it is constitutional. We have over 200 years worth of judicial decisions defining what the Constitution means

Nowhere does it say the Constitution means limited government

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Read any written works by the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the Constitution and tell me they didn't believe almost religiously in the limited reach of government.

You're simply ignorant of history if you think they didn't want the arm of government restrained or you're simply substituting your own beliefs in place of theirs. This really isn't debatable.

 

[The T]

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Read any written works by the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the Constitution and tell me they didn't believe almost religiously in the limited reach of government.

You're simply ignorant of history if you think they didn't want the arm of government restrained or you're simply substituting your own beliefs in place of theirs. This really isn't debatable.

Exactly. it isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Read any written works by the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the Constitution and tell me they didn't believe almost religiously in the limited reach of government.

You're simply ignorant of history if you think they didn't want the arm of government restrained or you're simply substituting your own beliefs in place of theirs. This really isn't debatable.

You are welcome to post such citations, Taz.

 

[rightwinger]

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about maintaining a limited government

Show where our Constitution it says that limited government is the core of the Republic.

Weak argument T

Read any written works by the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the Constitution and tell me they didn't believe almost religiously in the limited reach of government.

You're simply ignorant of history if you think they didn't want the arm of government restrained or you're simply substituting your own beliefs in place of theirs. This really isn't debatable.

Show me where there was unanimous consensus of the signers of the Constitution on the limited reach of Government.

If they thought it was essential to limit the scope of government, they could have done so. They specifically chose NOT to limit what government could become

Our Constitution is the end result of 200 years of judicial decisions defining the scope and limitations of Government

 

[Intense]

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

Through Consent, Amendment, and Due Process, Dick Weed.

 

[The T]

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

Through Consent, Amendment, and Due Process, Dick Weed.

You would think that fellow citizens learned these things in elementary school...or middle school at the latest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Through Consent, Amendment, and Due Process, Dick Weed.

The great majority of the Founders approved of judicial review. Nine of the states had the doctrine in their state constitutions in 1787. What John Marshal et al pulled off 16 years later was nothing new on the American landscape. So, yes, Consent, Amendment, Due Process, and Judicial Review.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Everyone know the Founders wanted government run health care, I mean isn't is obvious?

 

[The T]

Everyone know the Founders wanted government run health care, I mean isn't is obvious?

Hell they wanted all individual sweat equity to be Government's to do as they pleased. All money, wealth belonged to Government.

I KNOW it's in there somewhere...oh! That's right! That was written in the Constitution to happen when Society went into the toilet where we presently are now.

Ask any Statist on this board. They'll tell you so.

 

[Yurt]

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

fair enough....but that doesn't mean they did not support a limited federal government

they moved away from a strong central government head when they came here