• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Limited Government?

In some ways American society is Balkanizing into a wide variety of groups that aren't always friendly to each other. One size fits all Big Federal Govt. is becoming increasingly unable to govern effectively. The only way to defuse growing animosity is to reduce the power of any coalition of ideological groups to impose their will on other groups. The only way to do that effectively would be for most federal powers to devolve to the states. This means a weaker federal govt.

Let the peoples of the various states have a greater degree of autonomy from federal control. If folks want to save the Union they should reduce the power of any group to use the federal govt. as the means to impose themselves nationwide.

I understand the objections. But I don't see any other way to retain the continuing viability and legitimacy of the Union.
 
No, the Constitution still attempts to limit the government and give it only enough power to properly function. The purpose of the constitution is to give the government room to grow if necessary, not to frivolously expand the scope of government for whatever silly purpose happens to be pulling the strings in certain members of the populace. The founding fathers didn't sacrifice the idea of a limited government simply because the articles of confederation failed.

Yeah I agree. That's consistent with what I said, no?
 
Lol. So basically you are picking on words I have chosen to tell you what is what? The terms “common Defence” and “general Welfare” were meant merely as general headings under which the 17 other specific powers or ends were subsumed.

Well, just asserting that doesn't make it so. There is nothing in the text of the constitution that indicates that at all. Zippo. And no supreme court we've ever had has interpreted it that way. What you are describing is what James Madison WANTED the constitution to say, and it is even what he claimed it did say, but he lost that battle. No language supporting that view got into the constitution or was ratified and several of the other founders were very explicit in clarifying that it means exactly what it says- that the government has a power that is independent from all the others to tax and spend that is limited only by the requirement that the spending be focused on providing for the general welfare or common defense.

And thank goodness it isn't in there... We would obviously be a third world country today if our government had been incapable of adapting to changes and to take advantage of situations where we all end up better off by working together towards common goals. We would have faded away long ago. The framers, except Madison apparently, fully understood that and talked about it at length.
 
In some ways American society is Balkanizing into a wide variety of groups that aren't always friendly to each other. One size fits all Big Federal Govt. is becoming increasingly unable to govern effectively. The only way to defuse growing animosity is to reduce the power of any coalition of ideological groups to impose their will on other groups. The only way to do that effectively would be for most federal powers to devolve to the states. This means a weaker federal govt.

Let the peoples of the various states have a greater degree of autonomy from federal control. If folks want to save the Union they should reduce the power of any group to use the federal govt. as the means to impose themselves nationwide.

I understand the objections. But I don't see any other way to retain the continuing viability and legitimacy of the Union.

Let me say this. You don't simply need to restrict the federal government anymore. The local and state governments are also out of control thinking they can just do anything to anyone. This all needs to stop and people have to stop being so aggressive to the people of this country.
 
Well, just asserting that doesn't make it so. There is nothing in the text of the constitution that indicates that at all. Zippo. And no supreme court we've ever had has interpreted it that way. What you are describing is what James Madison WANTED the constitution to say, and it is even what he claimed it did say, but he lost that battle. No language supporting that view got into the constitution or was ratified and several of the other founders were very explicit in clarifying that it means exactly what it says- that the government has a power that is independent from all the others to tax and spend that is limited only by the requirement that the spending be focused on providing for the general welfare or common defense.

And thank goodness it isn't in there... We would obviously be a third world country today if our government had been incapable of adapting to changes and to take advantage of situations where we all end up better off by working together towards common goals. We would have faded away long ago. The framers, except Madison apparently, fully understood that and talked about it at length.

What I said is more or less what Madison said on the topic after it was passed. Keep walking into walls with your endless lies.

Federalist 41 is a lie. A LIE! I have the supreme court so I win. YEAH, I WIN! You lose, ok? I know, how bad for you.
 
Last edited:
Let me say this. You don't simply need to restrict the federal government anymore. The local and state governments are also out of control thinking they can just do anything to anyone. This all needs to stop and people have to stop being so aggressive to the people of this country.

It's small government that strikes me as aggressive. Some corporation pays off some politicians to look the other way when it is screwing over people. That's what small government means- the rich and powerful dominating everybody else. Passing up on every opportunity to improve our lot by working together. If you can increase our GDP by $100k just by spending another $10k on poverty amelioration, the small government folks say screw it, let them suffer even though it costs us $90k... Just for no reason other than malice.. That's aggression IMO, not trying to help people.
 
What I said is more or less what Madison said on the topic after it was passed. Keep walking into walls with your endless lies.

Uh, I already responded to that in my post... Read it all the way through before you hit reply.
 
Uh, I already responded to that in my post... Read it all the way through before you hit reply.

Yeah, that is how you cover your ass with nothing to back you up as to how he was wrong. With the federalist papers backing me and him you are like the little roach that won't die but only has one choice but to die.
 
It's small government that strikes me as aggressive. Some corporation pays off some politicians to look the other way when it is screwing over people. That's what small government means- the rich and powerful dominating everybody else. Passing up on every opportunity to improve our lot by working together. If you can increase our GDP by $100k just by spending another $10k on poverty amelioration, the small government folks say screw it, let them suffer even though it costs us $90k... Just for no reason other than malice.. That's aggression IMO, not trying to help people.

Its all the same really on all levels of government. I grow tired of people acting like the founders were right there when they were clearly wrong. They assumed people would fight for their liberties and not just allowed to be defeated, but that has been proven to be wrong. People do not fight for themselves. They allow things to happen to them and if they get something of it they generally agree with everything going out. The liberty fighters get smaller and smaller in number as time goes on and I'm afraid its a dying idea all together. Now people feel liberty means benefit from the state against their hardships or against other people. Something that is so far off the mark it just down right sad. Its truly rare when I look at a movement that is asking for freedom that is truly asking for it a truly free way so even when it appears they are close to getting it they are still off and most of what they want is benefit and aggression on others to get what they want.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that is how you cover your ass with nothing to back you up as to how he was wrong. With the federalist papers backing me and him you are like the little roach that won't die but only has one choice but to die.

Well, I addressed it soundly before you even raised it... Like I said- yeah Madison fought for it to be that way, and after it passed he even pretended it was that way. But no text like that made it into the actual constitution and several other founders very clearly say that it is an independent power for all the reasons I've been discussing. Madison lost that battle. We follow the constitution, not the wishes of an individual framer.

Its all the same really on all levels of government. I grow tired of people acting like the founders were right there when they were clearly wrong. They assumed people would fight for their liberties and not just allowed to be defeated, but that has been proven to be wrong. People do not fight for themselves. They allow things to happen to them and if they get something of it they generally agree with everything going out. The liberty fighters get smaller and smaller in number as time goes on and I'm afraid its a dying idea all together. Now people feel liberty means benefit from the state against their hardships or against other people. Something that is so far off the mark it just down right sad. Its truly rare when I look at a movement that is asking for freedom that is truly asking for it a truly free way so even when it appears they are close to getting it they are still off and most of what they want is benefit and aggression on others to get what they want.

The notion that "liberty" means "not working together" is just false. IMO if we set up a program, for example, that helps kids born poor get better educations, we are MORE free, not less. Those kids have way more options. That's what freedom is- having options. The definition from the right of freedom as just an absence of government is pretty meaningless really. Lots of things can infringe your freedom, not just government. Government can offset many of those other threats to your freedom. That shouldn't sound odd to you. You know that of course. If somebody comes over to your house and kidnaps you, you understand that the government is making you more free by arresting him, right? Same deal. I mean, really, are you seriously going to take the position that a kid who is born in abject poverty and can't get an education or a real shot to do anything in life except manual labor is more free than a kid who has access to decent education and job training and the food and health care assistance that makes it possible to actually do something more? That's one of those lines that the folks on the right just basically memorize and repeat over and over- more government means less freedom- but it doesn't make any sense at all if you actually think it through.
 
Well, I addressed it soundly before you even raised it... Like I said- yeah Madison fought for it to be that way, and after it passed he even pretended it was that way. But no text like that made it into the actual constitution and several other founders very clearly say that it is an independent power for all the reasons I've been discussing. Madison lost that battle. We follow the constitution, not the wishes of an individual framer.

Random comments is not equal to what I said. If you knew this topic you would know that. You however do, and just hope this crap passes.

The notion that "liberty" means "not working together" is just false. IMO if we set up a program, for example, that helps kids born poor get better educations, we are MORE free, not less. Those kids have way more options. That's what freedom is- having options.

Liberty is the right to do whatever you want without violating the rights of another. Those programs violate my rights and limit my choices to do with my money as I see fit.

The definition from the right of freedom as just an absence of government is pretty meaningless really. Lots of things can infringe your freedom, not just government.

I know more than government can violate your liberty. How is that a news break? Maybe where you come from people aren't aware of that, but everywhere else its obvious.

Government can offset many of those other threats to your freedom.

Offset is the wrong word unless you are talking about safety ideas beyond just simple punishment of crimes. Those type of ideas rob liberty.

That shouldn't sound odd to you. You know that of course. If somebody comes over to your house and kidnaps you, you understand that the government is making you more free by arresting him, right?

They aren't making me more free by arresting them. They are enforcing the laws that are meant to punish individuals that violate my rights.

Same deal. I mean, really, are you seriously going to take the position that a kid who is born in abject poverty and can't get an education or a real shot to do anything in life except manual labor is more free than a kid who has access to decent education and job training and the food and health care assistance that makes it possible to actually do something more?

I like how you flow from one idea to the next as if they are connected all that well. You go from punishing of violations to providing of needs as if its not a huge leap with an enormous valley in between. You really don't understand the difference between them and me, do you? If I'm paying for them I'm getting robbed and they are getting benefits. Individual help programs work by this basic mechanic. All of them.
 
Last edited:
Random comments is not equal to what I said. If you knew this topic you would know that. You however do, and just hope this crap passes.

Just describing the arguments I'm making "random comments" doesn't excuse you from coming up with counter arguments to them. You lose this one.

Liberty is the right to do whatever you want without violating the rights of another. Those programs violate my rights and limit my choices to do with my money as I see fit.

There is no right not to pay taxes. Taxing you is a power explicitly given to Congress. You get a say in how much taxes are and what the money is spent on like everybody else. That's just a policy preference, not a right.

I like how you flow from one idea to the next as if they are connected all that well. You go from punishing of violations to providing of needs as if its not a huge leap with an enormous valley in between. You really don't understand the difference between them and me, do you? If I'm paying for them I'm getting robbed and they are getting benefits. Individual help programs work by this basic mechanic. All of them.

In terms of how free you are, it doesn't matter which it is. That's irrelevant. Your freedom is impaired just as much by an economic condition that prevents you from getting a job as it is by somebody criminally stealing a job from you.

You just aren't really thinking rationally. You're thinking in slogans. If a poverty amelioration program costs $10k, generates $100k more GDP, and means that a kid born into poverty has more options, then everybody involves is more free. Period. All this talk about stealing and whatnot has nothing to do with anything. It's just empty rhetoric. You need to think more pragmatically. Focus more on real world impacts of various things and less on slogans.
 
Just describing the arguments I'm making "random comments" doesn't excuse you from coming up with counter arguments to them. You lose this one.

I did. Federalist #41. Lol. What makes you think random comments beats out Federalist #41? Because you say its a lie? Please.. Do you know how you go about beating a federalist paper? You don't do it by calling it a lie for starters.

There is no right not to pay taxes. Taxing you is a power explicitly given to Congress. You get a say in how much taxes are and what the money is spent on like everybody else. That's just a policy preference, not a right.

Lol, we get a say on how it is spent. That is so stupid. The only way that is possible if we were deciding on where it was going but most people hate that idea. Voting is not saying much of anything other than douchebag is better than assclown king. Doesn't mean much. And I didn't make an argument against taxes in general, but the avenue its taxed and carried out.

In terms of how free you are, it doesn't matter which it is. That's irrelevant. Your freedom is impaired just as much by an economic condition that prevents you from getting a job as it is by somebody criminally stealing a job from you.

Wait so my freedom is just as impaired because I can't get a job as much as it is if someone robs me? Tell me, how long did it take to reason that to yourself? That isn't even the worst of it though. You are basically saying that I should be robbed to help others freedom. Just unbelievable. Just take liberty from over here and put it over here. WTF?! Yeah you are exactly what I'm talking about when I say people haven't a clue what liberty is.

You just aren't really thinking rationally. You're thinking in slogans. If a poverty amelioration program costs $10k, generates $100k more GDP, and means that a kid born into poverty has more options, then everybody involves is more free. Period. All this talk about stealing and whatnot has nothing to do with anything. It's just empty rhetoric. You need to think more pragmatically. Focus more on real world impacts of various things and less on slogans.

I'm not talking in slogans. I'm talking in results of actions to assist people. How much we get out of right violation means nothing to me. I will not accept a right violation because I benefit later. That is nonsense talk. You can pragmatic if you want, and I will call it douchebaggery.
 
Last edited:
I did. Federalist #41. Lol. What makes you think random comments beats out Federalist #41? Because you say its a lie? Please.. Do you know how you go about beating a federalist paper? You don't do it by calling it a lie for starters.

No silly, my comments don't beat Federalist #41. The constitution beats Federalist #41. Again, it isn't in there at all. Read article 1, section 8, clause 1 again if you like. It ain't in there.

Lol, we get a say on how it is spent. That is so stupid. The only way that is possible if we were deciding on where it was going but most people hate that idea. Voting is not saying much of anything other than douchebag is better than assclown king. Doesn't mean much. And I didn't make an argument against taxes in general, but the avenue its taxed and carried out.

So you don't believe in democracy? Seriously? How can you possibly consider yourself some kind of defender of freedom or the constitution if you don't even accept the most central tenant of it?

Wait so my freedom is just as impaired because I can't get a job as much as it is if someone robs me?

Well, yeah, of course. Duh. Why would it matter in terms of your situation what caused it lol? That doesn't even make sense. If your freedom is rated from 1 to 100, why would it matter if it was a thief or an economy or the loch ness monster preventing you from pursuing a given option? If it's inaccessible to you, it's inaccessible to you and you are that much less free. If your options rate a 58 on the freedom scale because Nessie dropped you down from a 59 by planting his fat ass on top of your camero, you're still in the same situation you would be if your camero was broken down and you couldn't afford to fix it and the same situation you'd be in if your camero was stolen.

I'm not talking in slogans. I'm talking in results of actions to assist people. How much we get out of right violation means nothing to me. I will not accept a right violation because I benefit later. That is nonsense talk. You can pragmatic if you want, and I will call it douchebaggery.

Er, what? that doesn't make any sense. You denied that you were talking in slogans then just spammed out a series of slogans...

Anyways, I'm going to sleep for the night, but I'll check back in the morning.
 
Last edited:
No silly, my comments don't beat Federalist #41. The constitution beats Federalist #41. Again, it isn't in there at all. Read article 1, section 8, clause 1 again if you like. It ain't in there.

Lol. You must not understand my comment if you think it doesn't describe what is written. Here is thing you might want to notice at some point the federalist papers describe the constitution, but that isn't all that important for now.

So you don't believe in democracy? Seriously? How can you possibly consider yourself some kind of defender of freedom or the constitution if you don't even accept the most central tenant of it?
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is majority rule and I reject it. If you want to be a sheep go right ahead. Oh right, you aren't a sheep. You are a wolf and I'm the sheep. Sorry, I will get on my plate now. I guess I shear myself first, right?

Who ever said it was central tenant of it? The country that is laid out in the constitution is not a democracy at all.

Well, yeah, of course. Duh. Why would it matter in terms of your situation what caused it lol? That doesn't even make sense. If your freedom is rated from 1 to 100, why would it matter if it was a thief or an economy or the loch ness monster preventing you from pursuing a given option? If it's inaccessible to you, it's inaccessible to you and you are that much less free.

Aggression obviously. I didn't do anything towards his rights and he didn't lose any by losing his job and yet the government acted on me.

Er, what? that doesn't make any sense. You denied that you were talking in slogans then just spammed out a series of slogans...

That is because you accept coercion in taxes and refuse to accept that model is theft. Sorry you won't face reality, but yeah, it is.
 
Last edited:
Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power to tax, spend, borrow, regulate commerce, build armies, provide for general welfare and pass laws it deems "neccessary and proper" to achieve it's goals. The massive spending for the military should be of concern considering that the military IS the government in some countries. Look at this way, instead of getting rid of one king, the forefathers created 536 more kings. lol If that isn't a bigger government then what is?

Whatever laws congress passes supercede the laws of the states as per the Supremacy clause:

Article VI : This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So instead of one central government there are two, the federal and state. Two governments is more than one government, not less. Whatever mundane power the federal government doesn't have or want, the states are there to fill the void. There is no where to go to get away from the reach of government.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There are only two clauses in the Articles of the Constitution that limits government and neither are absolute:

The writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion, when deemed necessary to national safety.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law can be passed.


The amendments enumerate protections for certain individual legal rights, but it doesn't limit the size of government. So where is it written that the forefathers intended a limited government? Certainly not in the Constitution.
 
If you want to know what the founders were thinking, you should read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

A significant debate took place the first week on whether or not the "first body" (the House of Representatives) should be elected directly by the people, or by the state legislatures:

Mr. SHERMAN opposed the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the State Legislatures. The people he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled.

Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massts. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute...

Mr. MASON, argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people. It was to be the grand depository of the democratic principle of the Govtt...

Mr. WILSON contended strenuously for drawing the most numerous branch of the Legislature immediately from the people. He was for raising the federal pyramid to a considerable altitude, and for that reason wished to give it as broad a basis as possible. No government could long subsist without the confidence of the people...

Mr. MADISON considered the popular election of one branch of the National Legislature as essential to every plan of free Government. He observed that in some of the States one branch of the Legislature was composed of men already removed from the people by an intervening body of electors. That if the first branch of the general legislature should be elected by the State Legislatures, the second branch elected by the first-the Executive by the second together with the first; and other appointments again made for subordinate purposes by the Executive, the people would be lost sight of altogether; and the necessary sympathy between them and their rulers and officers, too little felt...

Mr. GERRY did not like the election by the people. The maxims taken from the British constitution were often fallacious when applied to our situation which was extremely different. Experience he said had shewn that the State legislatures drawn immediately from the people did not always possess their confidence. He had no objection however to an election by the people if it were so qualified that men of honor & character might not be unwilling to be joined in the appointments. He seemed to think the people might nominate a certain number out of which the State legislatures should be bound to choose.

Mr. BUTLER thought an election by the people an impracticable mode.

SOURCE

Then, as now, there were voices both for and against limited government. What we have is a compromise, hammered out over those 17 or so weeks in the summer of 1787.

But if you haven't read the convention notes, you have no clue as to what the founding fathers were thinking.

Benjamin Franklin summed it up in his final speech to the convention:

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."


In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.


On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.-

SOURCE
 
Last edited:
Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power to tax, spend, borrow, regulate commerce, build armies, provide for general welfare and pass laws it deems "neccessary and proper" to achieve it's goals. The massive spending for the military should be of concern considering that the military IS the government in some countries. Look at this way, instead of getting rid of one king, the forefathers created 536 more kings. lol If that isn't a bigger government then what is?

Lets do two of those things you listed.

Necessary and proper:

This power is to give the government the ability to carry out the enumerated powers.

This says it well..

James Madison said:
1. Of these the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Commerce clause

The commerce clause is a dispute clause plain and simple. It is meant to keep the peace between the members listed. It does not mean control of commerce by the government through the modern use of the term regulation.
 
Last edited:
Lets do two of those things you listed.

Necessary and proper:

This power is to give the government the ability to carry out the enumerated powers.

This says it well..



Commerce clause

The commerce clause is a dispute clause plain and simple. It is meant to keep the peace between the members listed. It does not mean control of commerce by the government through the modern use of the term regulation.

The enumerated powers only say what the government can do, not what it can't ...and they're quite broadly written ie: neccessary and proper" is left to the discretion of congress and we can see how well that turned out....a bigger government with bigger debt. Article 1, section 8 gives congress a hellava lot of power and no limitations. It can regulate interstate commerce which is quite a lot of commerce if you consider every state needs to import and export their goods and resources across state lines in order to thrive. The only stipulation is that all the regulations have to apply equally to all fifty states. That just means more regulations.
 
The enumerated powers only say what the government can do, not what it can't

No, Whatever they can do has to fit inside whatever they are allowed to overall. In effect, it is saying what they can and can't do in that scope.


...and they're quite broadly written ie: neccessary and proper" is left to the discretion of congress and we can see how well that turned out....a bigger government with bigger debt.

Well it should be pretty easy to follow since it should be easy to understand that its mostly talking about issues dealing with getting it in place and enforcing it. I think its not so much that its hard to understand but that is easy to abuse if you just use the terms used out of context to imply more than what is there.

Article 1, section 8 gives congress a hellava lot of power and no limitations. It can regulate interstate commerce which is quite a lot of commerce if you consider every state needs to import and export their goods and resources across state lines in order to thrive.

No, it only deals with disputes to keep peace. It only has to do with Indian tribes, foreign nations and states(and yes I'm aware I just ****ed up the order.) There is no regulation of business involved or implied. Its merely a trade and peace mechanic that is involved here. The states themselves are meant to handle all other issues involved in importing and exporting between them. The fed is just supposed to be the middle man here not the main actor running the show.

The only stipulation is that all the regulations have to apply equally to all fifty states. That just means more regulations.

No, no, no. Its completely individual based on the disputes at hand.
 
Last edited:
Commerce clause

The commerce clause is a dispute clause plain and simple. It is meant to keep the peace between the members listed. It does not mean control of commerce by the government through the modern use of the term regulation.

Au contraire, mon frere!!

The framers were decidedly in favor of regulation (in the modern sense) to enforce equitable commerce between the states. An example:

Genl. PINKNEY said it was the true interest of the S. States to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views [FN6] of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southn. States had in being united with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations; and that his constituents though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to this liberality. He had himself, he said, prejudices agst. the Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.

SOURCE

That is but one example. Throughout that summer of 1787, the discussion of commerce was fairly limited. But when the framers talked about it, they talked about it in terms of needing to have authority over it in order to keep states with a given advantage from demanding excesses from those states that lacked that advantage. Ergo, regulations. The framers were intent on each and every state being able to play on a level field when it came to trade.
 
This is a rather silly question that has been taken to the depths of absurdity by the far right and the so called think tanks which fuel and arm it.

Of course we have a limited government. That is one of the purposes of having written laws and a Constitution and a separation of powers with federalism.

Is that some sort of all encompassing ace card up the sleeve of the far right to deny the people what they want government to do as part of its legitimate functions? HELL NO.

The far right uses the perverted monster of what they think limited government actually means for their own twisted agenda. It is sickening.
 
That's just absurd that you thought you won that debate lol. I presented a ton of arguments, none of which you had even a weak counter argument against... I won by default because you didn't even manage to present your case at all kiddo. Your perceptions of the world are very strange... Just blurting out that you disagree and you think the arguments the other guy is making are just "opinions" is nothing more than waving the flag of surrender.

Look, a lot of words again, none of them presenting any data or actual facts to back them up. Just like the other thread. Now move along oh ye master of opinion and nothing more.
 
If you want to know what the founders were thinking, you should read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

Actually, a word of warning on that. You should read them, no doubt. BUT, be aware that all the founders agreed at one point not to release any notes or letters or documents explaining the constitution except what had already been released in the federalist papers. They didn't want to muddy the waters with a bunch of conflicting explanations any more than they had to. And, they were of the opinion that it is what the constitution says, not what they intended it to say, that matters. So, they destroyed all the official notes of the convention and made everybody promise not to release any of their own.

It's easy to think of the founders like they are one amorphous blob. The all looked and dressed the same and many of them sought to present a unified front. But they were actually far more divided than even politicians today. For example, some of them thought that there should be no executive branch at all. Others thought that we should have a king. The idea of having federal courts at all was controversial. Some of them wanted a government that was far more limited than even the government we had under the Articles of Confederation and some wanted a government far more powerful than what we do have.

Madison waited until all the other major players in the convention were dead, then released his notes. So, take it for what it is. It is not the equivalent of say the official record of floor speeches in Congress, it is more like reading Harry Reid or John Boehner's summary of what they want you to believe happened in Congress last year. Madison, and many others, consistently described the constitution more along the lines of what they wish it said than what actually was agreed on and put into the constitution. How much of that is willful manipulation and how much of it is just seeing the world through rose colored glasses nobody can say, but all the writings of the founders have that tendency and maybe Madison more than most.

But, all that said, do read them. Madison was brilliant and the founders' writings in general are surprisingly interesting. Madison's Federalist Papers 10 and 51 are also especially good reading. You really need to sit down and parse what he's saying line by line because it is densely packed with fascinating ideas. Just don't take any of it as authoritative by itself.
 
Um, read the Constitution. It sets limits on what powers the federal government has, and how it operates. It leaves all other things not specifically laid out for the States and for the People.

How can that be confusing?

Uhm I have read The Constitution. It enumerates the powers of the federal government and reserves others to the states, neither it nor the Decaration of Independence notes that the US shoudl have a limited government. Your argument (as a conservative) says teh founders wanted a limited government, so show me.
 
Back
Top Bottom