Better than all of the other attempts to organize a people under a central government.
Which, when put in context, means the weaker confederation under the Articles of Confederation. I see nothing in your writing that opposes the basic notion that the Constitutional Convention was in essense and exercise in creating a stronger federal government.
The framers did not want a central government that could run rough shod over the states' rights in Massachusettes or Virginia.
And here we have what is essentially a statement of faith. Catch phrases like "run rough shod" are coupled with fictional notions of a monolithic "intent of the founders" to produce an idea that has nothing to do with actual history. Madison for one clearly wanted a federal government that would be clearly superior to the states. Indeed, the supremacy clause shows that even the compromise position would be that laws passed by the new Congress would be, well, supreme over the states.
The language reserving so much power to the states and to the people was not a accident of omission.
That language, as found in the 9th and 10th amendments, wasn't even part of the original compromise formed at the convention. Indeed, those two amendments have been for the most part functionally meaningless both in our governance and in our jurisprudence.
overarching fear of central, remote governance
Well, yeah. Those words were added to allay unfounded fears of the States and were very useful in propaganda pieces like the Federalist Papers in selling the document to said States. After that however, those words were functionally meaningless though still philosophically important.
That fear, as it turns out, was justified by their circumstance of the moment and now has been justified by the incremental insertion of the powers of the central government into the lives of and against the rights of the individual.
This is nothing but straightforward, right wing boilerplate. The reality of the history of the United States is that freedom has expanded since the founding. There are no more slaves. Women can vote and so on and so forth. These imagined infringements on your liberty are illusory unless of course you are actually talking aout the right to own slaves or to supress half the population from voting.
It is only by torturing obscure and minor words and clauses that the Constitution will say that rights like the right to abortion are guarenteed at the federal level.
More standard, right wing boilerplate. The document itself, in Article III, tells us who actually has the power to authoritatively interpret the Constitution and that wouldn't be you. What you call "obscure" and "torturing" was, to the people who actually held the Constitutional power, sound jurisprudence. Though you act as though your ideologically based interpretation of the Constitution is somehow authoritative, it is not. You can no more dictate the interpretation of the commerce clause than I can authoritatively interpret the 2nd amendment. This is how it should be and this is in accordance with the system the founders actually created. The Supreme Court and other courts the Congress sees fit to create from time to time get that power and all knew at the convention and beyond that it would be the people who held these positions of power that would actually dictate how the Constitution functioned in the real world.
The intent of the framers was a central government that would regulate and coordinate the relations between the states.
You simply have to get over the notion that there was an overarching "will of the founders" that you can reference in religious fashion as one would reference the will of God from scripture. This kind of talk, though common among right wingers, is completely ahistorical.
The current state of affairs is a central government that dominates the states and under Obama, seeks to obliterate entirely states rights.
Now we're into staightforward partisan hackery. This comment is unworthy of serious response and I don't take it seriously. The rest of your post is hereby judged likewise.
