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

Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
897
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:

Me said:
The Constitution was intended to limit what the federal level can/can't do.

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

Liberal Law Graduate said:
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.

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.
 
Overview of America

Overview of America - Public Service - DVD


Great for viewing in all venues, this video gives you a big-picture vision of why we enjoy so much personal freedom and prosperity in America. It explains in a simple fashion the different systems of government throughout the world and the different economic principles underlying each type of government-illuminating the great virtues of our unique nation. Public Service Edition. (29 min., 2007)​
 
can they site explicit examples of what they are referring to? Where does it say "to expand" or is this a lawyers persoanal interpretation. Which makes it a persoanl matter not a policy one.
 
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
 
The Constitution was basically to define how powers were to be allotted/ divided. Not sure how one could get "expand" the powers of government when prior to the Constitution there was no definitions of what the powers were and who had them. Rather than centralizing power, it tried to dispearse it and include checks and balances to keep any one group or individual from having complete control. This is a limit more than an expansion of political powers.
 
Originally Posted by Liberal Law Graduate
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.

The poster is correct.

There is only one point to clarify:

and other limits on what the state governments could do.

and a delegated additional powers from or limits upon States not previously agreed to by the States under the Articles of Confederation or Treaty of Paris.
 
The Constitution was basically to define how powers were to be allotted/ divided. Not sure how one could get "expand" the powers of government when prior to the Constitution there was no definitions of what the powers were and who had them. Rather than centralizing power, it tried to dispearse it and include checks and balances to keep any one group or individual from having complete control. This is a limit more than an expansion of political powers.

What? $@#%$@%$@ boot Zippy please.

I have nothing against Zippy personally just people that are so damn ignorant that after 6k posts would claim:

Not sure how one could get "expand" the powers of government when prior to the Constitution there was no definitions of what the powers were and who had them.

Seriously Zippy... WTF? Are you just an anti-truther, establishment shill or what?

Treaty of Paris
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.

Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Article 2:

And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

Article 3:

It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

Article 4:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

Article 5:

It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

Article 6:

That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

Article 7:

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.

Article 8:

The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Article 9:

In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Article 10:

The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
 
Articles of Confederation
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
 
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.
 
What? $@#%$@%$@ boot Zippy please.

I have nothing against Zippy personally just people that are so damn ignorant that after 6k posts would claim:



Seriously Zippy... WTF? Are you just an anti-truther, establishment shill or what?

Treaty of Paris


Seriously Zippy... WTF? Are you just an anti-truther, establishment shill or what?


Zip is a disinformation agent, a troll sent here to cause any disruption that they can. you can tell by Zip's posts, over and over again.

lynn
 
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.

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.)
 
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.
 
Saying that it was not a step back for Federal powers is technically true but misleading. There was no such prior document & no comparable precedent. We were changing from a set of Colonies which had no such thing as "federal" power to the United States, and creating a federal government.

If you build your first house & do everything you can to make it small and compact, it's still larger than no house at all. But you didn't "build a bigger one."
 
First of all, notice that the liberal didn't contradict you.

There is nothing about the fact that the Constitution was intended to limit government power (which Liberal Law Graduate seems to admit in his response) that is incompatible with the fact that it was intended to expand government power.
 
Come to think of it, hasn't our society created one hell of a backward state of affairs & academic thought? How can comic book fans be 80% statist/collectivist modern liberals???

Superman? No, SuperMass...a vague group of labeled, hyphenated, indignant Americans marching around & slowly accumulating everyone else's wealth, to be distributed as determined at meetings in the Fortress of Beaurocracy.

Batman...Bad Man. He's an entrepreneur, remember?

About the only comic that would make sense from the current liberal position is that Ultimate Warrior farce from the early 90's. It makes no linear sense, expounds no principles, helps no one & yet you still have to pay to have it. & if you don't like it, he'll beat you up.
 
I'd also mention that the Constitution was a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, but almost ALL of them (with the exception of Hamilton) believed that the Constitution was a document of restraint, not one of broad implied powers.
 
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.
 
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

This is correct...
 
Saying that it was not a step back for Federal powers is technically true but misleading. There was no such prior document & no comparable precedent.

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top