The Primary Function of Gov't

[Wiseacre]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

That is not a primary function of the federal government at all. However, it is a function of local governments if a town/city decides they want to do that through their govt and it could be a function of individual state govts should they choose to implemnt such laws as long as they don't violate their state's constitutions.

I believe it changed because the federal govt realized it was basically powerless. This would give them power and influence over individuals from a centralized federal level and thus increase the domestic power and authority of the federal govt over the states and citizens.

Looking to europe and its financial problems I would say no I don't really want that type of society. However, looking at the federal govt here in the USA I would say we are already there....hence us having similar economic issues to what europe started facing 15 years ago.

There is nothing fair about one generation borrowing money to spend on themselves while footing future generations with the bill. As Jefferson said "I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."

 

[PoliticalChic]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

"The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people."

There is evidence to support a very differenct view....

...take this government, for example.

At a time of such extensive unemployment, one might believe that opting for paths that would provide jobs would be the logical progression from your claim of the primary function of government....

But the Obama administration, rather than lookin' out for the folks, is lookin' out for ....
...see if you believe this.....the 'American burying beetle.'


1. "Plans for a 1,700-mile-long tar-sands oil pipeline across the Midwest face a variety of political and logistical hurdles. To that, add one more: a large black beetle with red spots whose habitat, it seems, lies right where the Keystone XL pipeline would go.

2. Canadian pipeline company TransCanada has already moved into beetle relocation mode. Over the summer, a University of Nebraska researcher led a massive effort to find, trap and relocate more than 2,000 of the beetles from the pipeline's proposed route through Nebraska.

3. The U.S. State Department, named in the suit along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, held hearings in Nebraska and elsewhere along the pipeline route last week on TransCanada Corp.'s application for an international permit to build the pipeline, which would haul bitumen extracted from Alberta tar sands to refineries in Oklahoma and the Texas Gulf Coast.

4. The decision is not expected until the end of the year, and conservation groups in their lawsuit said it is premature to start moving beetles and mowing prairie grass before the company has permission to build the hotly contested pipeline."
American burying beetle becomes player in Keystone pipeline drama - latimes.com


But....what the heck it would only "...create an estimated 20,000 union jobs and untold thousands of spinoff jobs. It would provide the United States with a reliable source of oil from a friendly country."
Commentary: Keystone XL pipeline splits Obama's base - KansasCity.com

 

[jillian]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

The function of government is something that has been debated for centuries by Hobbs, Locke, Mill, and a myriad of other political philosophers. Government has many functions. Our own says that it is the protection and defense of the country. But the Constitution also provides that congress may act for the general welfare of its people and may regulate commerce among the several states. What constitutes proper general welfare and commerce clause activity has been addressed by the high court since its inception and is whatever is defined by the court until it changes its definition.

We have always run on debt since the american revolution. you can like that... or not. and there is a way to balance the budget as it was balanced when clinton was president... reinstate the bush tax cuts and get rid of waste.. military or otherwise. ending the wars of choice will help, too.

i hope that helps.

 

[Jarhead]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

The function of government is something that has been debated for centuries by Hobbs, Locke, Mill, and a myriad of other political philosophers. Government has many functions. Our own says that it is the protection and defense of the country. But the Constitution also provides that congress may act for the general welfare of its people and may regulate commerce among the several states. What constitutes proper general welfare and commerce clause activity has been addressed by the high court since its inception and is whatever is defined by the court until it changes its definition.

We have always run on debt since the american revolution. you can like that... or not. and there is a way to balance the budget as it was balanced when clinton was president... reinstate the bush tax cuts and get rid of waste.. military or otherwise. ending the wars of choice will help, too.

i hope that helps.

when you say reinstate the Bush tax cuts...do you mean across the board...or just for those who earn 250K a year and more?

 

[Navy1960]

"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." Thomas Jefferson Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125

Seems to sum up the original intent.

 

[Charles_Main]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

Treaties, Contracts, and National Defense.

 

[DiamondDave]

Ensure (Enact law, enforce law and adjudicate) the freedoms for citizens to live their lives, with good or bad results dependent on their own actions, choices, etc... and ensure the equal treatment under law

It's not to be your mommy, your savior, your crying towel, or your enabler

 

[Wiseacre]

Minor debt is one thing, when it approaches 100% of GDP, that's another. To me that's the height of irresponsibility, increasing debt that your children and grandchildren will have to service.

But the real question is this business of gov'ts primary function. A "social safety net" is the usual phrase, something we didn't guarantee in the past but have overburdened ourselves with these days. Aside from the expense, it disincentivizes many people to work, take risks, build something. The Left is always going on about 'fairness', but I wonder if we're really being fair in treating people in a fashion that takes away their motivation and independence.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the Government do this: the People will assuredly do the rest.

-Thomas Babington Macaulay

 

[flacaltenn]

As long as the Feds feed me cheeze, guarantee my salary after college or refund my loan, choose my car for me, tax my nasty habits, remove all risk from my investments and purchases, make sure the earth is not warm or cool ----- I'm happy...

 

[Dragon]

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue.

Incorrect. It was always a responsibility of the states. It wasn't something the federal government got involved in until the Great Depression, when the states were overwhelmed by the huge need for unemployment relief, bankrupting their resources. But at no time in our history was it "totally out of the government's purview." It just wasn't a FEDERAL responsibility.

 

[Dragon]

I would say that the function of government is to make and implement collective decisions -- the will of the people. At present it's doing a suck-ass job, but that in theory is what it's there for.

As to what sorts of things, specifically, it ought to be doing for us, that depends on what we want it to, recognizing that anything we get the government to do costs money in taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders intended the primary functions of the Federal government to be provide the common defense from enemies of the people, foreign and domestic, to promote the general welfare (meaning equally among all and not certain special groups or interests, and to secure our God given rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Then the people were to be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

Any other system takes all the rights away from the people and the government then determines what rights the people will be allowed and takes away whatever rights it wants to take away which means the people actually have no rights at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

I would say that the function of government is to make and implement collective decisions -- the will of the people. At present it's doing a suck-ass job, but that in theory is what it's there for.

As to what sorts of things, specifically, it ought to be doing for us, that depends on what we want it to, recognizing that anything we get the government to do costs money in taxes.

"....to make and implement collective decisions"??? You mean like "what's for dinner tonight"??

"....what we want it to"??? Like longer football seasons and more stuffing in Oreos??

You certainly have a warped view of "the original intent". We couldn't get folks to sign off on MANDATORY "collective decisions" without a general revolt..

 

[Bfgrn]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

Let's hear from some important people from our past...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Dragon]

The Founders intended the primary functions of the Federal government to be provide the common defense from enemies of the people, foreign and domestic, to promote the general welfare (meaning equally among all and not certain special groups or interests

Actually it meant the general welfare of the whole country as opposed to that of a particular state, which was supposed to be the primary responsibility of the state government.

, and to secure our God given rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Actually none of those three was a right protected in the Constitution, unlike freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, the right to keep and bear arms, due process of law, etc.

Then the people were to be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

Any other system takes all the rights away from the people and the government then determines what rights the people will be allowed and takes away whatever rights it wants to take away which means the people actually have no rights at all.

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

There is a lot of confusion among a lot of people about what the Constitution actually did and does. It was meant to create a stronger government, not a weaker one. The limitations of the Bill of Rights were inserted afterwards due to popular demand, and many of the Founding Fathers were against doing that.

The "enumerated powers" in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) are not restraints on government designed to protect the people; they are restraints on the FEDERAL government designed to protect the STATE governments. No state government operates under an enumerated power concept. The state governments can do anything whatsoever that is not prohibited them under either the U.S. constitution or the state constitution. So we really do not have a system of "limited government" in this country and never have; we just have a federal system which implies some limitation on the federal government -- but NOT on government in general.

Even with that concept, there are some extremely broad enumerated powers in the Constitution which make the federal government very, very powerful indeed. Those were there from the beginning. They are not recent additions, although some of the things done with them are.

Granted that SOME of the Founding Fathers had libertarian, limited-government ideas. Obviously, though, they did not entirely prevail in terms of what went into the document and what did not. The Constitution was put together by a committee, don't forget, and represents a compromise among conflicting interests and ideals.

 

[Liability]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

Actually, the primary purpose of government IS to protect the people. That's a form of "taking care of" the people. But it is not the form of "taking care of" the people which the libs usually associate with that phrase.

 

[The T]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

Actually, the primary purpose of government IS to protect the people. That's a form of "taking care of" the people. But it is not the form of "taking care of" the people which the libs usually associate with that phrase.

You mean like misinterpreting the General Welfare clause?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders intended the primary functions of the Federal government to be provide the common defense from enemies of the people, foreign and domestic, to promote the general welfare (meaning equally among all and not certain special groups or interests.)

Actually it meant the general welfare of the whole country as opposed to that of a particular state, which was supposed to be the primary responsibility of the state government.

Which is what I pretty much effectively said. Whatever the states or local communities promoted re the general welfare was up to them and was not a prerogative of the federal government.

, and to secure our God given rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Actually none of those three was a right protected in the Constitution, unlike freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, the right to keep and bear arms, due process of law, etc.

There was no division between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the eyes of the Founders. The Preamble of the Constitution clearly states the goals that the rest of the Constitution was intended to accomplish:

Establish Justice
Ensure Domestic Tranquility
Provide for the Common Defense
Promote the General Welfare
and
Secure the Blessings of Liberty

Even a cursory understanding of the documents the Founders left us knew that the 'blessings of Liberty' were all the God given unalienable rights that the Constitution was to protect and defend.

Then the people were to be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

Any other system takes all the rights away from the people and the government then determines what rights the people will be allowed and takes away whatever rights it wants to take away which means the people actually have no rights at all.

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

There is a lot of confusion among a lot of people about what the Constitution actually did and does. It was meant to create a stronger government, not a weaker one. The limitations of the Bill of Rights were inserted afterwards due to popular demand, and many of the Founding Fathers were against doing that.

The "enumerated powers" in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) are not restraints on government designed to protect the people; they are restraints on the FEDERAL government designed to protect the STATE governments. No state government operates under an enumerated power concept. The state governments can do anything whatsoever that is not prohibited them under either the U.S. constitution or the state constitution. So we really do not have a system of "limited government" in this country and never have; we just have a federal system which implies some limitation on the federal government -- but NOT on government in general.

Even with that concept, there are some extremely broad enumerated powers in the Constitution which make the federal government very, very powerful indeed. Those were there from the beginning. They are not recent additions, although some of the things done with them are.

Granted that SOME of the Founding Fathers had libertarian, limited-government ideas. Obviously, though, they did not entirely prevail in terms of what went into the document and what did not. The Constitution was put together by a committee, don't forget, and represents a compromise among conflicting interests and ideals.

You're making it much more complicated than it actually was. The Founders were engaging in a brave new concept, an experiment if you will, that succeeded even more than they could have envisioned. That experiment was to do away with a concept of a Papal or High Church influenced monarchy, feudal kingdom, dictatorship, despotic or totalitarian government called by any name.

Rather than a concept of a central government that would dictate to the people what their rights and privileges would be, the Founders instead for the feeral government to secure, protect, and defend what God given rights and privileges the people were deemed to already have. Then the people would govern themselves rather than be governed by a central government.

The Founders wanted a central government strong enough to secure the rights of the people but not strong enough that it could take them away.

Americans were the first people in the history of the world to form a nation in which the people governed themselves under a banner of freedom believed to be from God and therefore that was inviolate. And for the first hundred and fifty years or so, Americans were the most free, most courageous, most innovative, most productive, most generous, and most prosperous people the world had ever known.

For the last hundred years or so, politicians have been gradually, increment by increment, wresting the power to govern away from the people and shifting it more into an ever more intrusive, invasive, dictatorial, and authoritarian government.

And if we don't turn that around very soon, we will lose the United States of America that the Founders gave us and will become something quite different from that.