Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

[RetiredGySgt]

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

BY AMENDMENT. Not by fiat.

What do I care about an Italian car?

No, not by an Amendment

We can not got through a lengthy amendment process every time we need an interpretation of the Constitution. That is why we have courts

You and anyone that beliefs that crap are treasonous bastards to stupid to breed.

 

[Intense]

Why would the FF's give the executive branch the power to create agencies if they didn't want him/her to actually do it?

That's expanding government people.

This whole mantra of small government is a) partially right but b) a knee-jerk reaction to governmental waste. We GET IT! Waste is bad. No one wants waste.

Those Agencies were designed to implement authorized Authority, which is granted by consent, not contrary to it. Applying your argument to driving a car, would be like stating the accelerator must always be pressed to the floor, full throttle because that is why it is there. Your argument is flawed. Maybe you thing it is cute having the Government around oblivious to everything around it while constantly expanding, increasing the burden on the rest of us, but I'm not. Take off the ******* blind fold, unstop your ears, and either do jour job or get the **** out of Dodge.

 

[Intense]

According to a very small, insignificant, and powerless group of dissenters.

Not true at all Jake. Right and Wrong are based on Principle, not how many People you get to agree with you. Inalienable Right's come from God, and are Recognized by Man and Government, at least some of the time, when personal prejudice or interest aren't in the way. You realize that you are arguing that the Court has no limit, no one to answer to. That is exactly what Jefferson warned us about. That is not original design Jake.

The Court assumed that power inherent in the Constitution for it, Intense. Nothing else could have happened. We are not going back, Intense, to the days of the Founders.

Well... you got part of it right Jake. The Court assumed. You know the Courts and prisons are filled with people that assumed things. why is that? I don't live in the past Jake, I learn from it.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

While they might not have envisioned the monster that emerged after the war to suppress Southern independence, they destroyed limited government by dumping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution.

The real monster was born when the Supreme Court decided to ignore the fact the Constitution specifically said ANY rights not specifically given to the federal government belonged to the STATES or THE PEOPLE and ruled that federal government had all sorts of unspecified "implied" powers and rights after all. THAT was the beginning of the end of our republic, creating the very thing the founders spent YEARS through their reasoned debate and arguments all in the hopes of trying to insure would not exist. The Supreme Court doubled down on that one when it ruled that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the powers of the federal government were "supreme, unlimited and plenary" -meaning that just about any power grab the federal government wants to make, it can do so by simply claiming it falls under the Commerce Clause -which allows federal government to regulate the sale and purchase of goods ACROSS STATE LINES. Now to the ridiculous point that Obama is claiming that not only goods and services that aren't even sold across state lines are part of its powers under the Commerce Clause but claiming government has the RIGHT to force people to spend their money on PRIVATE goods or services the federal government thinks people SHOULD buy or be penalized -as long as they call that penalty a "tax". Another one of those magical "implied" rights. For private goods and services that don't even fall under the commerce clause because they aren't sold across state lines in the first place! Many legal scholars believe it will be upheld by the Supreme Court since PRECEDENT rulings have already declared that federal government's powers under the commerce clause were UNLIMITED AND SUPREME -meaning government can do just about anything it wants by simply claiming their power grab falls under the commerce clause. It will go to the Supreme Court after two different federal judges UPHELD the government's claim that it has these unlimited MASSIVE powers under the Commerce Clause as established by PRECEDENT rulings -even though they are NOT given to government under our Constitution and even though our Constitution specifically says that any power not specifically given to federal government belongs to states or the people. NOT to federal government -which gives lie to the notion that federal government EVER has "implied" powers at all! And NOW it has gotten to the point government claims it has the right and power to force citizens to spend their money in the private market as government sees fit instead of how citizens see fit for themselves. Since any citizen who wants to buy private health care insurance may NOT buy it across state lines in the first place which would let them seek out the cheapest prices, health insurance does NOT technically even fall under the Commerce Clause at all. Congress passed a law years ago forbidding the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines, reducing competition in the first place and the OBVIOUS way to increase competition is to lift that ban. So instead federal government made a massive power grab on the phony LYING ass claim doing so would increase competition and reduce the cost of premiums - when they REJECTED doing what they knew for a FACT would really reduce the cost of premiums by lifting the ban on selling it across state lines. That's because NONE Of this was ever about reducing the cost of health insurance or health care in the first place and was entirely about POWER and stripping a few more rights and powers from the individual. A citizenry that retains the real power is a THREAT to the nonstop efforts of government that constantly seeks to expand ITS powers -at YOUR expense.

GOVERNMENT cannot make private companies more competitive by entering as a player because government CANNOT take the bottom line into consideration and still fulfill its REAL obligations and its REAL role! Pretending they can provide health insurance at a more competitive price is a lie -they can only undercut private companies and take a LOSS -but it is taxpayers left holding the bill for it and must make up the shortfall -in reality getting stuck TWICE for the cost first by what they paid directly for their own and what they must pay to make up for the shortfall with government undercutting private companies by taking a loss! And Congress knows this and LIED to us -they constantly lie to us and believe that people are stupid cows who will believe whatever lie they want to feed us at the moment. This isn't badmouthing my own government but ALL governments. It is the nature of the beast -government which is INHERENTLY untrustworthy and not the benign, kindly nanny the left would have you believe! All you have to do is look at the horrific ATROCITIES carried out against its OWN citizens by governments around the world just in the last century. It can only turn on its own citizens when it has finally accumulated enough power to do so! And they all inevitably seek to incrementally gain that power. GOVERNMENT is always the world's worst mass murderer of ITS OWN CITIZENS! The very nature of government is to seek ever more ways to enslave its own citizens. Oh, it is always in the name that man's own creation is the better master of our lives than we could possibly be of our own and it is for our own "good" after all! In other words, insisting man exists for the benefit of its own creation instead of the other way around. THAT is the inherent nature of ALL governments which requires never ending vigilance against its nonstop efforts to encroach on your rights to live your life as YOU see fit -and claim that right for itself! In a country like ours it must happen in stealthy, incremental steps deluding citizens into believing that forfeiting our rights to an ever more powerful government is "good" for us as individuals to have a less free life. Now claiming the right to declare all citizens MUST buy particular goods and services in the private market, and the determination of how YOU spend your money in the private market is GOVERNMENT'S decision to make -not yours! Government is not a business and not intended to or designed after a business model! Businesses exist to make MONEY. Government does NOT! Government does not create wealth -it must TAKE it from those who do for its own existence with those who love massive, powerful government demanding that the most successful and productive in life be increasingly punished for their success by means of outright confiscation of what THEY earned. As if government OWNS people and therefore is ENTITLED to the fruits of YOUR labor -not YOU. Another obscenity -but for the left which loves the massive, powerful government -they believe government owns citizens who exist for its benefit in the first place -and therefore is ENTITLED to confiscate the wealth from those who labored to create it! Government can only increase the ability of private companies to effectively compete through its laws and regulations -or hamper and interfere with the ability to do so by the same means. Our government DELIBERATELY chose to hamper it and now uses that fact to justify a massively OBSCENE power grab. Not to make money -but to take more POWER for itself which can ONLY come by taking it from YOU. The ban was created to keep premiums artificially high in the first place -gee, why would federal government do THAT?

So what a total bastardization to insist that government has a right and power to FORCE me to buy goods and services in the PRIVATE MARKET inside my own state even if I don't want it! Sorry, but that is NOT part of the Commerce Clause but a lot of legal scholars are insisting it really is after all and includes the power to regulate goods and services that are NOT bought and sold across state lines. And that the commerce clause gives federal government the power to force people to buy them even when they CHOOSE not to buy a good or service in the private market at all!

Does anyone in their right mind REALLY believe the founders intended federal government to have THAT power? COME ON!

The members of that court that first found "implied" powers and rights of federal government beyond those specifically listed and in spite of the specific wording of the 10th Amendment failed to live up to their own oath of office and every court since has followed suit citing "precedence" as justification for their rulings instead of the CONSTITUTION as they are required and obligated and SWORE to do!

In law schools future lawyers are schooled in honoring PRECEDENT instead of the Constitution as well. There are no constitutional law classes at most law schools at all! PRECEDENT is bullshit and only guarantees that some jurists will feel obligated to continue on with bad rulings of the past on the grounds those rulings EXIST. With that mindset, we'd still have slavery in this country. Which is why they don't take an oath to uphold PRECEDENCE, but to uphold the CONSTITUTION! The loser, as usual when government lays claims to never-ending expansions of its powers -will always be WE THE PEOPLE.

 

[Agit8r]

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

Those proponents of limited government did not believe that a standing army should be kept during peacetime. Also, they believed that perpetual war was deleterious to liberty. As far as their knowledge of a superpower government, they had only to look to the British Empire as a negative example

i think its interesting that no one here has even mentioned the civil war. most people believe that the civil war was simply fought over slavery. but it was also fought over the states wanting more power than the federal government.

the southern states wanted most of the powers of government to rest with the states, while the northern states were in support of a strong central government. this is also at the core of this debate. by the north winning this war, it enshrined the idea of a strong federal government as the back bone of our country. there are many arguments as to why this is needed.

you can look at modern europe and the european union as good example of this. since we are a collection of states that fall under the flag of one nation, there is the argument of the need to have broad overall encompassing laws that govern the whole. things like free trade & interstate commerce, interstate travel, general rights and portability all go into this core argument. these are all things that we take for granted but in europe prior to 1993, traveling between countries and doing business was much more difficult because at the time each individual country had it own trade laws and regulations. this restricted the flow of people, goods and services. when the EU came to power, it simply did what the US had done before and made trade and travel much easier. thus helping to improve the economy of all if its members.

now the genius that is the US consitution, left one perfect answer to every problem. that is that the constitution can be changed at any point and time by the people. now if "the people" want to limit the scope of government then we are allowed to do so. this though would required an amendment to be written and ratified by the states. should this be done? i will not speak for the whole but I can see some positives as well as negatives in limiting the scope of the federal government. maybe that should be a new thread.

A limited government need not lack strength. It is simply limited in what it can do to the people under it's authority

 

[rightwinger]

BY AMENDMENT. Not by fiat.

What do I care about an Italian car?

No, not by an Amendment

We can not got through a lengthy amendment process every time we need an interpretation of the Constitution. That is why we have courts

You and anyone that beliefs that crap are treasonous bastards to stupid to breed.

Yea...me and 300 million flag waving Americans

 

[Douger]

They were Luciferian brainwashed Idiots.
They STILL run your movie.
It has been a fantastic architectural project.
They won !

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, Gunny, you are small potatoes and wrong on this one.

 

[onecut39]

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.

That is correct. The ONLY power granted to the federal government was outlined in the constitution.

Whatever was left was a state or local government's responsibility.

All this sounds spiffy as hell but not one of you will tell us how a government limited to the powers of the revolution could possibly govern today.

C'mon give it a try. Tell us exactly how limited it should be and after that tell us how it could function in the world as it is today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right wackaloons can't do that. They literally have no idea how to govern.

 

[Intense]

The far right wackaloons can't do that. They literally have no idea how to govern.

Jake, anything Right of McCain is far Right to you. Just think, had he picked Lieberman, he would have won, and we would be sinking slightly slower than we are now. Totalitarianism bad. The fast way or the slow way getting there, is still the same end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, anybody beginning just to the left of Sarah is far right and moving right to reactionary.

Intense, you are not mainstream in your beliefs.

 

[Intense]

No, anybody beginning just to the left of Sarah is far right and moving right to reactionary.

Intense, you are not mainstream in your beliefs.

I want to be true to my beliefs, main stream or not should be secondary to all of us, not primary. From what ever perspective any of us come from, it is more important to give an honest and truthful witness of your perspective, to effect change, or maintain justice. What good is telling everyone what you think they want to hear just to fit in? What purpose does that serve in correcting misdirection?

 

[The T]

There is Judicial Review based on reason and logic. There is Judicial Review based on Imagination. We were not an Oligarchy by design. The three coequal Branches should not be abandoned along with checks and balances and accountability because of a constructive Law or concept who's correct path is through the Legislature. This practice is a usurpation and an abuse to due process.

According to a very small, insignificant, and powerless group of dissenters.

Not true at all Jake. Right and Wrong are based on Principle, not how many People you get to agree with you. Inalienable Right's come from God, and are Recognized by Man and Government, at least some of the time, when personal prejudice or interest aren't in the way. You realize that you are arguing that the Court has no limit, no one to answer to. That is exactly what Jefferson warned us about. That is not original design Jake.

Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

(Judicial Despotism)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What do I care about an Italian car?

No, not by an Amendment

We can not got through a lengthy amendment process every time we need an interpretation of the Constitution. That is why we have courts

You and anyone that beliefs that crap are treasonous bastards to stupid to breed.

Yea...me and 300 million flag waving Americans

That is why you and your buddies got your walking papers in November dumb ****. Te Constitution allows for change, THROUGH the AMENDMENT process not through judges creating whole new meanings to what each power is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The economy and jobs were the rallying points for the GOP victories, not ideology.

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you or me.

 

[Bullfighter]

[Yea...me and 300 million flag waving Americans

Except for the millions of Mexican flag waivers:

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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.

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

 

[Sunni Man]

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

That is pure nonsense and not proof of any such thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Granting Congress power to provide for the "general welfare" proves the founders wanted a government with few limits.

That is pure nonsense and not proof of any such thing.

Of course it is. Here, read.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.