"The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

[Travlyr]

While technically correct, the major government expansion came after the money changers took control.

 

[dude58677]

Yes there was. The precedent to compare it with was the Articles of Confederation. Since the Constitution established a more powerful more centralized federal government than those did, what Liberal Law Graduate said was accurate.

The fact that there was a Bill of Rights as the reasons I stated before end this discussion.

 

[erowe1]

The fact that there was a Bill of Rights as the reasons I stated before end this discussion.

I don't see how that comment ends this discussion. The point at issue is whether or not the Constitution expanded government power beyond what it was before.

Nothing in your comment about the Bill of Rights, which I quote below, is a reason to believe that it did not.

The Bill of Rights was enacted because as stated in the Anti-Federalist Papers, the anti-federalists feared that a Constitution could not be ratified unless there was a Bill of Rights. There was outrage over the secrecy of the document. So the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The Bill of Rights preamble reads:

"In order to prevent the abuse or miscontruction of powers, further restrictions must be added."

This person you are debating is way off the charts.

Was the Constitution designed to limit federal government power in some way? Yes, but that's not the point in dispute. Both parties in the OP agree that it was designed to limit the federal government in some way (and for that matter, so does everyone else, including Bush and Obama).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters! Don't let me down here!

I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians. I just posted this to someone:



to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:



Let's hear your thoughts on this, I need some more ammo to fire back at this guy. Personally, I think he is being ignorant of the many amendments of the Constitution to cherry pick his point of view. Hell, he even proved that in his own words.

He's right. See "the Constitution Of No Authority" by Spooner for more on this.

 

[acptulsa]

Nate hit it on the head here: The guy's argument simply wasn't a logical defense of an expansive Constitutional interpretation. (Of course, there IS no logical defense of an expansive Constitutional interpretation.)

Well of course there is.

Look, how could the founders possibly protect us from electronic eavesdropping? Such devices are obviously and fundamentally useful for violating a citizen's privacy, and the founders could foresee their development to the extent that devices which aid in spying are always under development and just about always have been. But they couldn't foresee the form they would take clearly enough to specifically exclude them from legality.

So, yes, there is a reason to believe that the interpretation of the Constitution can and must endure expansion over time. The question then becomes, is the Constitution about expansion of federal powers, limitation of federal powers, or defining legal guidelines so that (if we're on the job) we never get an expansion of federal power that does more harm than good?

 

[Brett]

Expand it compared to the articles of confederation? Yes.

Expand it in the terms that we understand "expand" today? Hell no.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Government, like cancer, has but one prime objective, growth.

It is it's natural course.

Which is why, from time to time, it must be cut out, before the host dies.

 

[erowe1]

Government, like cancer, has but one prime objective, growth.

It is it's natural course.

Which is why, from time to time, it must be cut out, before the host dies.

Well said. Is that your own? I may want to borrow that line some time.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well said. Is that your own? I may want to borrow that line some time.

Thanks, yes all mine, although plenty of people have said the essentially the same thing in different words.

Say it three times and you can keep it.

 

[Theocrat]

Agreed and Addendum

Instead of trying to refute him factually (as in trying to deny that the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government), I'd point out his argument is a non sequitur. Just because the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government over the Articles of Confederation does not mean that it was intended to grant the sweeping powers he needs. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers despite the fact it was originally intended to expand the Federal government's powers. It was not intended to grant the Federal government practical omnipotence over every aspect of human affairs.

That is a great point, and I'd like to add this to what you've said above. The fact that our Founders separated the powers of the federal government into three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) shows two important things:

1. It illustrates our Founders' beliefs about the inherent character of man, as it relates to civil authority. Our Founders understood that if you give a human being too much power, it will eventually corrupt him, to the ruin of an entire society. That is why the powers were separated to keep this from happening, all based on checks and balances. There was no intent to expand the powers of the federal government beyond what it was enumerated to do by the States. That is crucially important.
2. The fact that we even have a document called the U.S. Constitution presupposes that the federal government was meant to be limited. Why else write a document in the first place to tell the feds what it can and cannot do? Our republic was based on the rule of law, which means what is right (in accordance with our Creator and Giver of our rights) reigns supreme, not the whims of men (as was the case in the later English monarchy from which our Founders left). When government is based on the whims of men, there is no limit to its growth, which is how we're in the mess we are today.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters! Don't let me down here!

I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians. I just posted this to someone:



to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:



Let's hear your thoughts on this, I need some more ammo to fire back at this guy. Personally, I think he is being ignorant of the many amendments of the Constitution to cherry pick his point of view. Hell, he even proved that in his own words.

The Constitution provided for a very small central government that accounted for less than 2% of all GNP spending in the United States prior to 1913 (the year the states abandoned the principles of the Founders).

So basically, the Founders wanted a central government that accounted for about 1.5% of the GNP, instead of 1%. At less than 1%, the nation was in danger of invasion by military powers, and in danger of continuous civil war and disputes over ownership of western lands, navigation of rivers, etc.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If this guy is as stupid as he is to believe what he's spouting, chances are you can't convert him.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Unfortunately, your liberal adversary happens to be correct. The Constitution was a betrayal of the spirit of '76 by Hamilton and the Federalists, crafted in secrecy while Jefferson was in Paris. There's a book on this subject which, in the interest of full disclosure I must admit to not having read yet. But apparently it does a pretty good job shedding some light on the Constitution's backstory.

http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Libe...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284620353&sr=8-1

That's bullshit. Jefferson supported the Constitution from Day One. His best friend James Madison was the main man who wrote it.

If you don't like the Constitution, then please head over to the dailykos.

 

[Vessol]

If my rights are God-given, why do I need a document to protect and define them? Because of that document, they are now to many people, government-given and thus are able to be taken away.

 

[Vessol]

I've yet to finish reading it myself. But I highly suggest everyone here who hasn't, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

http://jim.com/treason.htm

The thesis

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."

 

[Captain Shays]

Read Tom Woods' book Nullification, which does a great job outlining how the Interstate Commerce clause, Necessary & Proper clause (I think that's it?) and General Welfare clause have been perverted beyond reason to expand the government.

This is also mentioned in Wood's and Gutzman's "Who Killed The Constitution" and The Judge's "Constitution IN Exile".

The Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare clause have historically been the choice weapons of collectivists in their war on the Constitution with the Interstate Commerce clause being our modern day monster since the turn of the 20th century.

Yep! We're screwed all right!

 

[Captain Shays]

If my rights are God-given, why do I need a document to protect and define them? Because of that document, they are now to many people, government-given and thus are able to be taken away.

This came about with the progressive movement starting under Teddy's time. The Fabian socialists changed the whole lexicon of phraseology. Thats when our schools and the media started telling us we were a democracy ( a system that our founders detested) instead of a Republic.
The difference seems vague these days and even otherwise intelligent individuals can't give a clear explanation as to the differences. It's easy for us though. In a Republic we get our rights from God, or natural rights that pre-existed the Constitution and the government gets their limited powers from us and by our consent. In a democracy we get our rights from the government just like all other collectivist systems.
So, if the elites could convince us, generation after generation that we get our rights from the government, then, when the time is right or it's politically expedient they can take them away from us without a revolt or without losing power. We and our children become willing slaves to a centralized monolith in Washington and we're easily controlled, propagandized and lied to. We will go along with just about anything that diminishes our liberty or grows government (redundant). We'll fight wars that have no legitimate value relative to our national security or defense of our Constitution under just about any circumstances that we could become scared about.

 

[Vessol]

This came about with the progressive movement starting under Teddy's time. The Fabian socialists changed the whole lexicon of phraseology. Thats when our schools and the media started telling us we were a democracy ( a system that our founders detested) instead of a Republic.
The difference seems vague these days and even otherwise intelligent individuals can't give a clear explanation as to the differences. It's easy for us though. In a Republic we get our rights from God, or natural rights that pre-existed the Constitution and the government gets their limited powers from us and by our consent. In a democracy we get our rights from the government just like all other collectivist systems.
So, if the elites could convince us, generation after generation that we get our rights from the government, then, when the time is right or it's politically expedient they can take them away from us without a revolt or without losing power. We and our children become willing slaves to a centralized monolith in Washington and we're easily controlled, propagandized and lied to. We will go along with just about anything that diminishes our liberty or grows government (redundant). We'll fight wars that have no legitimate value relative to our national security or defense of our Constitution under just about any circumstances that we could become scared about.

Yes. I must agree 100%.

 

[Brian Defferding]

I want to thank everyone for their answers, it has been very informative. Many things said in here I can go back to for other related debates, too.

 

[ChaosControl]

The Constitution was intended to expand the power of the federal government. While doing so, it set certain limits on what the federal government could do and other limits on what the state governments could do.

If you honestly think that the United States Constitution represented a step back for the powers of the Federal Government, you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the document and why the Constitutional Convention was called in the first place.

This is correct. The constitution expanded the federal government. This is why I don't consider myself a constitutionalist. It centralized the nation the most it would be centralized until Lincoln and the Republicans decided to kill the 10th amendment.

The anti-federalists who opposed the constitution were the good guys. But unfortunately in real life, the good guys lose the vast majority of the time.