Obama Deception Video

[Bass Master]

The same thing can be said about any country that stops short of planned genocide. Not exactly a high standard to be measuring by.]

The word "mistake" is so universal, so there naturally is no standard to be set, really.

"The constitution and the union, and the subsequent Civil War, were all massive moves towards centralization of power over what was previously a decentralized and more free society."]

No, that's not true at all. The constitution, if you've read it, limits the power of government. This is because it was also written to restrain government. How can you say the constitution was a major move towards the centalization of power when it specifically outlines what the governments role is? For example, in Article I Section 8 of the constitution, it clearly limits the governments power by allowing for a congress that has specific enumerated powers. This allows for checks and balances. The constitution itself provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. Anyone who is educated on constitutional law will tell you that to say such a document led to the centralization of power makes no sense whatsoever. You are throwing in your (very) unfounded opinions and mixing them up with facts. The only thing that has led to a large centalization of power is our current government not following their own laws that are outlined in the constitution.

Irrelevant BS. Americans are no more lazy than they were before or are likely to be, their ideology has changed is all. They are quite active in proposing the state as the solution to all of their problems aqnd busy making it happen, so lazy doesn't quite encompass their reality.]

Again, not true. The educational system in America has continued on a stupefying downward slope for many years now. Many kids today are not as educated as they should be about U.S. history, including constitutional law. People who are not educated on a certain subject can make bad choices.

Benajmin Franklin, a rutting prick who loved the idea of paper money, especially since his print shop was to be awarded the contract for printing it, and who recommended friends to become stamp tax collectors and the like before the revolution.]

You're right. Benjamin Franklin loved 'paper money' so much that he was for having our currency linked to silver/gold. A lot of sense being made there.

Alexander Hamilton, a man who wanted the new American union to mirror the British empire and eventually supplant it. An advocate of central banking and a funded public debt from the beginning."]

Alexander Hamilton was a big government Federalist who did want to mold the newly founded union into another British empire, but why are you speaking about him like our founders all agreed with him on this? They did not. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was completely against this and that is one reason why they both are so popular when it comes to American history.

George Washington, a weed smoking dip**** of a general about whom not much can be said.]

So being the first president of the Untited States isn't something that many people can talk about? And so what if he smoked marijuana. I myself do not smoke it, but I believe people have the right to put what they want into their bodies. Furthermore, all this means is we had a man who was in the military, who won and fought many battles, even though he smoked marijuana. This is great. I would be very embarrassed if I lost to an army of soldiers or great leaders who smoked marijuana and were still able to defeat me.

John Adams, a putz who complained of tyrrany at every step while at the same time enacting things like alien and sedition, which basically fined and jailed people for daring to criticize him or the congress he had in his pocket, exempting of course from this protection his VP, Jefferson. And, who defended the British after the Boston massacre.]

Once again, when did I say our founders were perfect? Many powerful leaders have abused their powers one way or another. Nevertheless, I think you missed my point about the ideals that forged the constitution, rather than the people.

Thomas Jefferson, who basically became a nice practical stateman when he was in office and left the ideals he espoused beforehand, which were great, to his followers so they could measure him against them and find him wanting.

Once again, another unfounded, personal opnion, which is what your post is full of. This is irrelevant. The fact is he had good ideas and these ideals, not the persons errors/flaws, is what made this country great.

The list goes on, but far from being superior to our current crop of useless state slugs, they're about on the same level and in many cases far worse.

In many cases worse? How so? They're not even touching the same level.

Oh he did some good stuff. He also slaughtered a ****load of Indians in case you missed it, and was a slavery advocate.

America was young. It was expanding. This was war. He also reduced the U.S. national debt to it's lowest level in history and left office with a sound currency, all while fighting the bankers. You couldn't compare this with any of our 'leaders' today. You also forgot to mention the fact that long before Andrew Jackson, the native American Indians were running around killing each other. They were NOT united, so don't twist things. Once again, irrelevant.

That's because they are inseperable. Few if any of the founders of this nation fought and died for some Lockian/Spoonerist vision of a nation with government restricted to natural law and individual liberty. Most were just pissed at the level of exaction the British were pulling, not the concept itself.

And the leaders, like George Washington, who fought alongside and led the soldiers don't count? You forget that soldiers need great leaders and wars are not won without them. Our founders were leaders who lead soldiers to independence, to victory. Furthermore, if our founders were not that angry with the overall concept, then how come they crafted a documented (the constitution) that was completely different than that of the British? You are wrong. Nevertheless, another personal opinion. Totally irrelevant and unfounded.

[dsade]

Yeah another great way to dig a daily, weekly and monthly amount of our blood sweat and tears. I tell ya i shed a tear for "an incovenient truth" then i seen Al Gores "climate footprint". Soon we will pay a Carbon Tax for everything and the rich will have "green" companies.. Im sure you know this post isnt for you. Anyone who took the time to get to know the rothschilds could easily dicern some of the farces we live by, argue to the death and some claim to be experts in knowing the game they are playing in.

Barriers to entry will be insurmountable for ANY new companies.

[CDB]

The No, that's not true at all. The constitution, if you've read it, limits the power of government.

As I said, no written constitution in the history of the planet has restrained or limited the growth of any government. Our government has exceeded its enumerated powers, used construction to build the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses into catch alls, passed ammendments solidifying its power and nullifying checks against that power. Saying the constitution limits the power of the American government is an analysis worthy of a freshman intro to history paper. The fact is, it hasn't limited the power of the government. The fact is that every enhancement of the power of the government has been built on its existing constitutional powers through construction and reinterpretation. The fact is, if the goal was to limit centralized government then one sure fire stupid way to hamstring that goal was to... create a central government.

This is the difference between state propoganda and reality, theory and actuality. Every fourth graders knows about the supposed seperation of powers and the existence of checks and balances. The point of the matter is have they actually worked? No. Were they even intended to work? Arguably no, since people like Jefferson were warning against the dangers of construction and coming up with the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 so soon after the constitution was ratified. Hans Hoppe has argued quite convincingly in Democracy the God That Failed, that written constitutions serve no end but to strengthen the government they are ostensibly supposed to limit.

This is because it was also written to restrain government. How can you say the constitution was a major move towards the centalization of power when it specifically outlines what the governments role is?

Are you even aware of the existence of the Articles of Confederation? The constitution was surely a massive step toward centralization from there, wouldn't you agree?

For example, in Article I Section 8 of the constitution, it clearly limits the governments power by allowing for a congress that has specific enumerated powers.

Once more, freshman analysis. Has it actually worked? No.

Again, not true. The educational system in America has continued on a stupefying downward slope for many years now. Many kids today are not as educated as they should be about U.S. history, including constitutional law. People who are not educated on a certain subject can make bad choices.

What you are missing, or unaware of, is that people were making the same exact choices way back when in the golden years.

You're right. Benjamin Franklin loved 'paper money' so much that he was for having our currency linked to silver/gold. A lot of sense being made there.

Once more, the difference between theory and reality. No paper money, once instituted, has stayed connected to gold. The steps are thus: control the mint; control the issuance of money receipts and substitutes; severe the tie to the commodity. All governments have followed those three basic steps in that order. Our first experiences with paper money were during the colonial times when MA printed money to pay their soldiers for unsuccessful raids of the French to the north. And by golly, they made a pledge to pay it all back in gold and silver in a few months and never print any more money again. They never stopped printing until parliment outlawed paper money issues in the colonies, within one year their notes had devalued 40% from par, and they thus created the great shortage of specie which itself was used as a justification for more paper money.

Once more, the difference between theory and historical fact.

Alexander Hamilton was a big government Federalist who did want to mold the newly founded union into another British empire, but why are you speaking about him like our founders all agreed with him on this?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the founders were no different in the range of opinions as politicians are today. There were very few people who truly wanted limited government. Then as now, people wanted to use the government to cripple their competition and loot their neighbor.

They did not. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was completely against this and that is one reason why they both are so popular when it comes to American history.

Jeffersonians didn't want this. Jefferson himself when he was in office was less pure of a libertarian than is usually thought.

So being the first president of the Untited States isn't something that many people can talk about? And so what if he smoked marijuana. I myself do not smoke it, but I believe people have the right to put what they want into their bodies.

See above. I could care less about Washington. The point once more is the range of personalities and opnions.

Furthermore, all this means is we had a man who was in the military, who won and fought many battles, even though he smoked marijuana.

He lost the majority of his battles.

Once again, when did I say our founders were perfect? Many powerful leaders have abused their powers one way or another. Nevertheless, I think you missed my point about the ideals that forged the constitution, rather than the people.

No, I completely disagree. Ideals did not forge the constitution, people did. And those people were just as fallible and questionable in their methods and motives respectively as people are today. The whole reason we have a first ammendment is because of the animosity between Christian religious sects for example. No one trusted the other with the issue of state religion, so they just had the federal government stay silent on it. Several states already had established churches at the time. The constitution and the subsequent union weren't spun out of whole cloth, they are an evolution of the colonial experience, and on a continuum of freedom to tyranny they represent a massive step in the direction of the centralization of power, not the other way around.

America was young. It was expanding.

This does not excuse attempted genocide.

He also reduced the U.S. national debt to it's lowest level in history and left office with a sound currency, all while fighting the bankers. You couldn't compare this with any of our 'leaders' today.

Yes he did, and from Van Buren on until the Civil War we probably had the best banking system we've had so far. So what? It's gone now, never likely to return too. The overall trend in our country has been to centralize more and more power. If the constitution limits the governments, how has it grown so massive?

You are wrong. Nevertheless, another personal opinion. Totally irrelevant and unfounded.

Actually there's a strong base of scholarship that supports my opinion, but it sounds like all you've read is approved histories and nothing that upsets the apple cart. See Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. See Democracy, the God that Failed, by Hans-Herman Hoppe. See 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods. See Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom by various authors.

If the constitution was such a good thing, why were so many legislatures against it until they were essentially bought off? Why did the Federalists use their positions of power as in the post office for example, to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalist opposition? If the constitution limits the power and growth of government, why is it currently the behemoth it is? If the checks and balances do the same, same question? Name one paper constitution that has actually worked to restrict a government in the entirety of history. It hasn't happened, ever. And perhaps that's because, like every other piece of legislation that gets through any law making body, it's a political decision made and influenced more by special interests than anything to truly do with the will or good of the people to be governed. When steel tarrifs go up no one thinks it's because far sighted businessmen and legislators think it's a wise decision and in our interest. It's because enough steel industrialists agitated for it to make it happen. All legislation, even the most basic stuff like the constitution, is subject to a similar analysis.

[Bass Master]

As I said, no written constitution in the history of the planet has restrained or limited the growth of any government. Our government has exceeded its enumerated powers, used construction to build the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses into catch alls, passed ammendments solidifying its power and nullifying checks against that power. Saying the constitution limits the power of the American government is an analysis worthy of a freshman intro to history paper. The fact is, it hasn't limited the power of the government. The fact is that every enhancement of the power of the government has been built on its existing constitutional powers through construction and reinterpretation. The fact is, if the goal was to limit centralized government then one sure fire stupid way to hamstring that goal was to... create a central government.

Not true. The U.S. constitution HAS restrained the power of government to a certain degree, for SOME time. However, it will ALWAYS be up to the people to remain ACTIVE and vocal when it comes to protecting liberty. The U.S. constitution was written to restrain the government. The entire document does nothing but limit governments power by allowing checks and balances and allowing us rights to overthrow that form of government if it becomes tyrannical. When did I say the constitution restrains the government indefinitely? Once again, you are not reading what I wrote properly. I said the constitution itself has not led to the centralization of government, etc. I never said that it will protect Americans if they become lazy and don't remain watchful and protective when it comes to freedom. In fact, quite the contrary. The constitution is a key that was given to us to use. You can either throw it away, or use it to help ensure our freedom. That is what I said. The constitution in CONJUNCTION with watchful Americans is what's required. After all, our founders often talked about this. They did not just write the constitution and expect it to do all of the dirty work. Why on earth do you think they put in the Second Amendment? If they had aboslute faith in future American generations, they would not have done this. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us?" Franklin responded, "A Republic if you can keep it." None of our founders just wrote the constitution and thought everything was going to be okay from that point on. In fact, if you read their quotes you will see a large amound of pessimism when it comes to the future of America. What you said about all constitutions not restraining government is null and void because you obviously misread my post.

This is the difference between state propoganda and reality, theory and actuality. Every fourth graders knows about the supposed seperation of powers and the existence of checks and balances. The point of the matter is have they actually worked? No.

Yes, BUT that is not my point. My post originally was about WHY the constitution was framed and what it was written for, not if it worked or not. You are now twisting the conversation to your liking because you were wrong. I will guide you back to the above post: these checks and balances DID work for some time, but they are now very weak, due to the large growth of governmnet and it's somewhat fascist ideals, in conjunction with a public that does not hold government accountable for it's actions.

Were they even intended to work? Arguably no, since people like
Jefferson were warning against the dangers of construction and coming up with the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 so soon after the constitution was ratified. Hans Hoppe has argued quite convincingly in Democracy the God That Failed, that written constitutions serve no end but to strengthen the government they are ostensibly supposed to limit.

Once again, they did work, otherwise the newly founded Union would have become a fascist dictatorship by it's 80th birthday. Again, the constitution was a KEY that was given to us, much like a gun. If someone is breaking into your house to harm you and your family, you can either take that gun and defend yourself by shooting the intruder or just ignore it and not use the gun and potentially watch yourself and your family die. I know, it's a violent and extreme analogy, but it fits what I am saying quite perfectly I believe. The constitution is just that: a weapon. If Americans become lazy and unresponsive when it comes to protecting their freedoms then it OBVIOUSLY will not work because of governments nature. I will say it again: I, nor any of our true founding fathers, never said the constitution alone will protect a public who doesn't care about their freedom. This is all Jefferson was saying. Completely irrelevant to my original post.

Are you even aware of the existence of the Articles of Confederation? The constitution was surely a massive step toward centralization from there, wouldn't you agree?]

No. In fact, I would violently disagree. Do you even know why the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1788, after it's short life? It was a one size fits all document. At that point, various Federalist factions were still unhappy with that document and wanted to make it into something completely different, that allowed a bigger, more centralized government. Some wanted a strong Federation with no real checks and balances, while others did not. Anyway, back to the point. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union did not allow for the necessary checks and balances that a free society needed. In fact, one of the determining factors for it's quick demise was it's "one-state, one-vote" plank. So how on earth could you say a document (The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union), which did NOT have any real checks and balances and did not allow us basic fundamental rights, like those provided by the Bill of Rights, was, in that sense, more of a precursor to true liberty than a document (the U.S. Constitution) that did allow for these checks and balances and basic fundamental rights? How on earth could such a document that allows for states rights over the Federal governments say be a 'massive step' to a large, tyrannical, centralized government? What you said is completely turned upside down. In fact, I will further elaborate: If so, then through what mechanisms did the U.S. constitution allow a much bigger, centralized government? I am dying to hear this rebuttal.

Once more, freshman analysis.

Ahhh, scathing remarks: a sign of ignorance and bad education. I think the only freshman analysis here is the one that says the Bill of Rights and 1st & 2nd Amendment could lead to a large, centralized bureaucracy, rather than an apathetic and uncaring public.

Has it actually worked? No.]

To a certain degree, yes. Nevertheless, your opinion, not fact.

What you are missing, or unaware of, is that people were making the same exact choices way back when in the golden years.

Yes, but the number of dirty politicians has dramatically increased in numbers since then, along with a dumbed down society that is rotting from the inside out.

Once more, the difference between theory and reality.

If it were a theory, it would of never happened.

No paper money, once instituted, has stayed connected to gold.

Yes, but, again, that is because of governments nature and the failure of the public to hold that government accountable for it's actions.

The steps are thus: control the mint; control the issuance of money receipts and substitutes; severe the tie to the commodity. All governments have followed those three basic steps in that order.

Yes, and this always leads to economic disaster. Nevertheless, the above rebuttal also applies to this statement.

Our first experiences with paper money were during the colonial times when MA printed money to pay their soldiers for unsuccessful raids of the French to the north. And by golly, they made a pledge to pay it all back in gold and silver in a few months and never print any more money again. They never stopped printing until parliment outlawed paper money issues in the colonies, within one year their notes had devalued 40% from par, and they thus created the great shortage of specie which itself was used as a justification for more paper money.

Yes, I already know. I am well-versed on American history. What does the economics of paper money have to do with the morality of paper money? Furthermore, what does this statement have to do with the fact that our founders were for silver and gold currency and that's why they wrote that in the U.S. constitution? Once again, going off topic.

Once more, the difference between theory and historical fact.

Yes, and, other than completely going off topic, you proved my point: paper money always fails and that is why our founders outlined that in the U.S. Constitution. You seem rather mixed up.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the founders were no different in the range of opinions as politicians are today. There were very few people who truly wanted limited government.

No, they were different. Yes, they, like you and me, had flaws, but, once again, those flaws cannot be compared to the pure greed and corruption of todays politicians.

Then as now, people wanted to use the government to cripple their competition and loot their neighbor.

Once again, you proved my point. Yes, and that's why the U.S. Constitution has not been working for the past few decades at keeping the growth of government at bay: an ignorant, apathetic, uncaring public. Nevertheless, mankinds nature and/or ignorance does not make it right, now does it? Therefore we should not falter. Dogs will always go back to vomit, does that mean we should let our dogs eat their vomit when they get sick? I hope not.

Jeffersonians didn't want this. Jefferson himself when he was in office was less pure of a libertarian than is usually thought.

Not exactly true, since 1. that breed of libertarians were new and evolving and 2. not if you're judging by todays standards, which isn't a real standard to begin with.

He lost the majority of his battles.

And what's your point? When did I say he won most of his battles? The fact is, he, along with many others, won the war, which means he won the battles that counted. This is 101 in warfare.

No, I completely disagree. Ideals did not forge the constitution, people did.

No, becaused these ideals came from the people who physically forged the U.S. Constitution. They put those ideals down on paper.

And those people were just as fallible and questionable in their methods and motives respectively as people are today.

Once again, another personal opinion.

The whole reason we have a first ammendment is because of the animosity between Christian religious sects for example.

Wrong. The First Amendment was established to protect unpopular - not popular - speech as a whole.

No one trusted the other with the issue of state religion, so they just had the federal government stay silent on it.

No, not exactly. That is because society was also evolving and we dealt with those issues as we evolved (for example, slavery, etc.). This has happened to various degrees in many other countries. We also have the separation of church and state.

Several states already had established churches at the time. The constitution and the subsequent union weren't spun out of whole cloth, they are an evolution of the colonial experience..

No, the constitution is a document of BASIC principles that never age, no matter how much society evolves. We should always have the right to free speech, to bare arms, etc. This, like most of what you said, falls in the realm of theory and personal opinion, not historical fact.

........and on a continuum of freedom to tyranny they represent a massive step in the direction of the centralization of power, not the other way around.

I already debunked this nonsense. No such mechanism in the U.S. Constituion allows for a such a centralization of power, since those mechanisms involved clearly limit the power and scope of government.

This does not excuse attempted genocide.

Again. This was war, not genocide. Big difference. Also, I like how you left out the part about the Indians killing each other long before Andew Jackson. And various Native American tribes raping and pillaging/destroying other Native American villages doesn't mark close to genocide? Your one-sided story obviously doesn't hold any water.

Yes he did, and from Van Buren on until the Civil War we probably had the best banking system we've had so far. So what???

"So what?" You were the one naming all of Jackson's flaws. So I named some great things he did. You seem very lost in your own argument.

It's gone now, never likely to return too. The overall trend in our country has been to centralize more and more power?

I never denied this fact. But the difference is, this tend stems from two mechanisms: 1. the governtment and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable, not the U.S. constitution. It's that simple. The historical fact is, when the U.S. government obeyed the U.S. Constitution, we were more free. When the government started ignoring it and grew larger, the less free we became. This clearly shows us that it's the government and the public that is at fault here, not a document.

If the constitution limits the governments, how has it grown so massive?

Once again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable.

Actually there's a strong base of scholarship that supports my opinion, but it sounds like all you've read is approved histories and nothing that upsets the apple cart. See Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. See Democracy, the God that Failed, by Hans-Herman Hoppe. See 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods. See Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom by various authors.

No, I often read both sides of the story, but these books are nothing more than theory. I have stated everything using obvious, historical facts, not theoretical jibber.

If the constitution was such a good thing, why were so many legislatures against it until they were essentially bought off?]

Once again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution.

Why did the Federalists use their positions of power as in the post office for example, to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalist opposition?

What do Federalists have to do with the U.S. Constitution itself? The Hammilton Federalist agenda is anti-U.S. Constitution. These were men on powertrips who rose to power in one way or another and abused their power. The constitution 'allowed' this only because the public and government officials did not use it as a weapon or a guideline. Nevertheless, the same answer remaines: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution.

If the constitution limits the power and growth of government, why is it currently the behemoth it is?

Again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution.

If the checks and balances do the same, same question? Name one paper constitution that has actually worked to restrict a government in the entirety of history.

Same rule applies to all countries when it comes to the rise of tyrannical governments. Again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the their constitution. You forget that the U.S. Constitution is simply a guideline, rather than something to babysit an apathetic public and take care of all of their problems.

It hasn't happened, ever. And perhaps that's because, like every other piece of legislation that gets through any law making body, it's a political decision made and influenced more by special interests than anything to truly do with the will or good of the people to be governed. When steel tarrifs go up no one thinks it's because far sighted businessmen and legislators think it's a wise decision and in our interest. It's because enough steel industrialists agitated for it to make it happen. All legislation, even the most basic stuff like the constitution, is subject to a similar analysis.

That is because people do not keep dirty polticians in check. Nearly every single fascist government that has ever came to be IS a byproduct of an apathetic, uncaring public that does not safeguard it's freedoms and hold government accountable accordingly. Their constitutions are simply just guidelines for them to do so. That's it. The government and the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution has led to the current massive centralization of power. A public that is not politically active and aware of what's going on is also a breeding ground for Washington D.C. political bacteria which festers and leaves no room for honest politicians. The end result: everyone has their hand in the pie.

[ChrisSanderso]

Does anyone here read the bible. The antichrist is a decendant from the middle east and brings the world to deception to create one world order.


I don't know about you guys but what a coincidence!!!

[ChrisSanderso]

Daniel 8:23-25 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

And through his policy also he shall cause craft (fraid, deceit, treachery)to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

[CDB]

Then let's ignore all the BS and concentrate on the core of the issue. I claim the constitution was a massive move toward the centralization of power, you say it wasn't. I say you're wrong. You're wrong for several reasons.

One, The articles of confederation posited a much looser union. I disagree with your one size fits all comment, but that's aside from the point. The point is it is inarguable that the constitution represented the formation of a much stronger central government than had existed prior. Prior to the constitution being ratified each state was sovereign and could literally take or leave decisions made by other governing bodies, continental congress or anything else. There was no superior central government to speak of prior to the constitution, there was one afterward. Whatever supposed limits the constitution put on that government, every power granted to it was one not exercised prior. As such it is inarguably an expansion and centralization of power from the previous state of affairs.

Two, the constitution was ramrodded through the legislatures of the time by the Federalists. You asked what the Federalists had to do with constitution, they were its main proponets. Or did you miss "The Federalist Papers," that series of essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay arguing for the ratification of the constitution? Murray Rothbard has a nice history of this process in Conceived in Liberty where he details convenient shifts in legislatures from opposing the constitution because it represented a centralization of power to being in favor of it after favors and bribes were delivered, where he details how the Federalists used their control of the post office to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalists against the ratification, their opinion as expressed in the Cato letters written as responses to the Federalists. As with any other piece of legislation the 'limitations' on government you seem so intent on were nothing of the sort. They were the trade offs necessary to buy people into supporting the constitution and central government at all. They were not inserted as a matter of intent of those who were pushing for a central government who would gladly have left all restrictions aside, but as placations for those who were initially opposed.

This leads into the regular type of power elite analysis that's pretty standard. Analogously, anti trust is supposed to stop monopolies. At least that's how it was sold to the public. In reality it facilitates the imposition of cartels on people, and when you examine its history you see that the people lobbying for it were not against monopolies but trying to cripple their competition, who were expanding production faster than anyone else and lowering prices faster than anyone else. The constitution is not some holy document, it's really just another piece of legislation the same as any other. Some compromise was necessary to get it through, those comromises specifically are the supposed 'limitations' on the power of the central government to placate the state governments into believing they were maintaining their sovereignty when in reality the people pushing the constitution wanted a strong central government, not a limited one.

Three, as an aside this analysis is supported by a lot of modern scholarship that has looked back on the reality of how things were pushed through and the constitution ratified. you have to look deeper than the song sung to the public to see what was really going on. As Lew Rockwell described Hoppe's position:

I recall when he spoke at a conference we held on American history, and gave a paper on the U.S. Constitution. You might not think that a German economist could add anything to our knowledge on this topic. He argued that it represented a vast increase in government power and that this was its true purpose. It created a powerful central government, with the cover of liberty as an excuse. He used it as a case in point, and went further to argue that all constitutions are of the same type. In the name of limiting government—which they purportedly do—they invariably appear in times of history when the elites are regrouping to emerge from what they consider to be near anarchy. The Constitution, then, represents the assertion of power.(Emphasis Added)

Further from Hoppe's paper on the subject:

This Constitution provided for the substitution of a popularly elected parliament and president for an unelected king, but it changed nothing regarding their power to tax and legislate. To the contrary, while the English king's power to tax without consent had only been assumed rather than explicitly granted and was thus in dispute, the Constitution explicitly granted this very power to Congress. Furthermore, while kings — in theory, even absolute kings — had not been considered the makers but only the interpreters and executors of preexisting and immutable law, i.e., as judges rather than legislators, the Constitution explicitly vested Congress with the power of legislating, and the president and the Supreme Court with the powers of executing and interpreting such legislated law.

...

Moreover, because the Constitution provided explicitly for "open entry" into state government — anyone could become a member of Congress, president, or a Supreme Court judge — resistance against state property invasions declined; and as the result of "open political competition" the entire character structure of society became distorted, and more and more bad characters rose to the top.

Free entry and competition is not always good. Competition in the production of goods is good, but competition in the production of bads is not. Free competition in killing, stealing, counterfeiting, or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. Yet this is precisely what is instituted by open political competition, i.e., democracy.

...

(T)he Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.

And this is so not because virtuous men put in place a constitution to limit government and it just didn't work. It's because the constitution was, is, and in general always will be a tool for the assertion and codification of state power, pushed by those who want such, and limited only to the extent that any opposition can be raised to demand such small changed and limitations here and there, which are all shortly rendered irrelevant via construction. The constitution doesn't limit the government because it was never meant to do so in the first place.

[Bass Master]

One, The articles of confederation posited a much looser union. I disagree with your one size fits all comment, but that's aside from the point. The point is it is inarguable that the constitution represented the formation of a much stronger central government than had existed prior.

A much stronger (limited) central government: yes. A centralized bureaucracy with no checks and balances: no. There is a big difference. The central government did need to be a little stronger and better organized, as it was not under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The fact is, if the Federal government still followed the constitution to a T, it would be no where near as centralized as it is today, therefore you cannot say the U.S. Constitution is responsible for todays centralized nanny state. Furthermore, you still cannot state the mechanisms of the constitution that were, as you say, responsible for todays centralized government. That is because there aren't any. All you have done thus far is cite theoretical jibberish.

Prior to the constitution being ratified each state was sovereign and could literally take or leave decisions made by other governing bodies, continental congress or anything else. There was no superior central government to speak of prior to the constitution, there was one afterward. Whatever supposed limits the constitution put on that government, every power granted to it was one not exercised prior. As such it is inarguably an expansion and centralization of power from the previous state of affairs.

Under the U.S. Constitution, every single state is still sovereign. Although there really is no Constitutional procedure for State secession, states will not be stopped from seceding under the penalty of law, therefore it is still possible. Furthermore, don't act like the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, when originally written, were established to not form a more perfect Union and a stronger centralized government. Why do you think it was called "The Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION?" They wanted the union to be "perpetual". The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was nothing more than a precursor to the U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union lacked the perfect balance between a weak centralized government that couldn't do it's job and a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy like what we have today. The U.S. Constitution, however, met this balance, which gave us a strong central BUT limited government that could do it's job without becoming overgrown and tyrannical. Our government, as stated before, is in the latter state ONLY because it has been ignoring it's own constitution. The simple, historical fact still remains: the more the government ignored it's own constitution, the bigger and more centralized it has become. This clearly shows us that the state governments and the people of this country are clearly at fault here, not the U.S. Constitution, otherwise the government would not have to disobey it in order to become so big and centralized.

Two, the constitution was ramrodded through the legislatures of the time by the Federalists.

First of all, let me explain something to you. Not all Federalists had the same politics and not everyone who backed the U.S. constitution was a "Federalist" in the sense that you speak of. I am talking about the Federalists, like Hammilton. In reality, many of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution." In fact, only a few Federalists, such as Hammilton, had a more extreme way of thinking. Not all Federalists agreed with him, so the Federalists that weren't as extreme may have wanted a more stronger, centralized Federal government, but nothing to the extent of what the more extreme Federalists, like Hammilton, wanted. Not all Federalists agreed with everything that was written in "The Federalist Papers", even though today, it is still not known if all of the material that makes up the Federalist Papers were written by Hammilton, Madison, and John Jay. In fact, the Federalists themselves were fighting with each other too. So, once again, do not paint a picture that all of the "Federalists" got together and agreed on an overgrown, centralized bureaucracy. You have the extreme Federalists mixed up with those who were much less extreme. Also, in Federalist NO. 84, Hammilton basically says that there is no need to add in the Bill of Rights, so, like I said earlier, most of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution" and if it were up to him alone, he would have written the U.S. Constitution MUCH differently. He just went with the U.S. Constitution because it provided a stronger central government and that was better than nothing, as in a launching ground for future modifications that would mold us into another British empire. Most of the other Federalists did not think the same way. In other words, 5 bucks is better than 2 bucks, but it still isn't good enough because I want a million dollars. Nevertheless, our current form of government would shock even the most extreme Federalist, with MAYBE an exception to Hammilton.

You asked what the Federalists had to do with constitution, they were its main proponets. Or did you miss "The Federalist Papers," that series of essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay arguing for the ratification of the constitution?

Of course I am aware of "The Federalist Papers", but, once again, they have nothing to do with the constitution itself when talking about it's laws and how it led to todays overgrown bureaucracy. We started talking about the U.S. Constitution and what it was written for and how it led to the centralized bureaucracy that we currently have, so that is why I asked you what does the Constitution itself (as in how it led to todays centralized power) have to do with the Federalists who backed it. I should have worded that better, but I was rushing through it. Anyway, how the Constitution led to the current form centralized power that we now have really doesn't have anything to do with those who backed it, since not all the Federalists agreed on every single thing. We did not start off talking about what person was a Federalist and what kind of Federalist they were, so, once again, that has nothing to do with the constitution in that respect. You went from talking about how the U.S. Constitution led to an overgrown, centralized power to the Federalist agenda, which is, once again, irrelevant because 1. as I already stated, not all Federalists agreed with each other and 2. the Federalists backing the constitution doesn't have much to do with it leading to todays overgrown, centralized government, especially since most Federalists would not agree with how overgrown our government is today. If you wanted to get into the Federalists who backed the U.S. Constitution, then you should have said that about the Federalist Papers to begin with. Make your point clearly and my rebuttals will be clear. Nevertheless, I will guide you to the above rebuttal for the answer to this statement as well, since it perfectly fits the context.

Murray Rothbard has a nice history of this process in Conceived in Liberty where he details convenient shifts in legislatures from opposing the constitution because it represented a centralization of power to being in favor of it after favors and bribes were delivered, where he details how the Federalists used their control of the post office to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalists against the ratification, their opinion as expressed in the Cato letters written as responses to the Federalists.

This was simply Federalists and Anti-Federalists fighting, just like how todays major parties fight with each other, but on a much bigger scale. Many Anti-Federalists really had no real solution to the constitution that they were so against either, with maybe the exception of a few, like Jefferson, etc.

As with any other piece of legislation the 'limitations' on government you seem so intent on were nothing of the sort. They were the trade offs necessary to buy people into supporting the constitution and central government at all. They were not inserted as a matter of intent of those who were pushing for a central government who would gladly have left all restrictions aside, but as placations for those who were initially opposed.

Once again, you are obviously misreading my post. I was talking about the constitution allowing for checks and balances in order to prevent a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy, like what we have today. Back then, under the U.S. Constitution, we did not have a centralized bureaucracy, even though the Federal government was a bit more centralized and stronger. There is a difference between more centralized/stronger and an overgrown, centralization of power, like what we currently have. The Constitution, if the government today actually followed it, would not have allowed them to grow so big and, like I already said, most of the Federalists who backed the U.S. Constitution would not be happy with the current form of government and it's size. In fact, the Constitution that was ratified is not the exact same constitution that the more extreme Hammilton Federalists wanted because, due to the large and negative response from the anti-Federalists, state legislatures ended up voting to add the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are the Bill of Rights.

The constitution is not some holy document, it's really just another piece of legislation the same as any other. Some compromise was necessary to get it through, those comromises specifically are the supposed 'limitations' on the power of the central government to placate the state governments into believing they were maintaining their sovereignty when in reality the people pushing the constitution wanted a strong central government, not a limited one.

Once again, your opinion. Irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution was pretty much the first of it's kind when it came to true freedom. It is not just another piece of legislation. The Federalists who backed the constitution wanted a stronger central government, not what we have today. Major difference. The states still maintain their sovereignty, to a certain degree, today. The only thing that threatens this is them not holding the Federal government accountable to the U.S. Constitution. I have nothing against a stronger government, but it should always have checks and balances and not be too centralized and overgrown, as it is under the original constitution, not todays central government. There is such a thing as limited, but stronger government.

Three, as an aside this analysis is supported by a lot of modern scholarship that has looked back on the reality of how things were pushed through and the constitution ratified. you have to look deeper than the song sung to the public to see what was really going on. As Lew Rockwell described Hoppe's position:

And this is so not because virtuous men put in place a constitution to limit government and it just didn't work. It's because the constitution was, is, and in general always will be a tool for the assertion and codification of state power, pushed by those who want such, and limited only to the extent that any opposition can be raised to demand such small changed and limitations here and there, which are all shortly rendered irrelevant via construction. The constitution doesn't limit the government because it was never meant to do so in the first place.

Lew Rockwell is just giving his opinion at the end of the day. It's just that: an opinion. Our founders wanted a stronger, BUT limited government, that is why we only have three main branches of government under the U.S. Constitution, not six or nine. The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

[ChrisSanderso]

A much stronger (limited) central government: yes. A centralized bureaucracy with no checks and balances: no. There is a big difference. The central government did need to be a little stronger and better organized, as it was not under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The fact is, if the Federal government still followed the constitution to a T, it would be no where near as centralized as it is today, therefore you cannot say the U.S. Constitution is responsible for todays centralized nanny state. Furthermore, you still cannot state the mechanisms of the constitution that were, as you say, responsible for todays centralized government. That is because there aren't any. All you have done thus far is cite theoretical jibberish.



Under the U.S. Constitution, every single state is still sovereign. Although there really is no Constitutional procedure for State secession, states will not be stopped from seceding under the penalty of law, therefore it is still possible. Furthermore, don't act like the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, when originally written, were established to not form a more perfect Union and a stronger centralized government. Why do you think it was called "The Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION?" They wanted the union to be "perpetual". The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was nothing more than a precursor to the U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union lacked the perfect balance between a weak centralized government that couldn't do it's job and a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy like what we have today. The U.S. Constitution, however, met this balance, which gave us a strong central BUT limited government that could do it's job without becoming overgrown and tyrannical. Our government, as stated before, is in the latter state ONLY because it has been ignoring it's own constitution. The simple, historical fact still remains: the more the government ignored it's own constitution, the bigger and more centralized it has become. This clearly shows us that the state governments and the people of this country are clearly at fault here, not the U.S. Constitution, otherwise the government would not have to disobey it in order to become so big and centralized.



First of all, let me explain something to you. Not all Federalists had the same politics and not everyone who backed the U.S. constitution was a "Federalist" in the sense that you speak of. I am talking about the Federalists, like Hammilton. In reality, many of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution." In fact, only a few Federalists, such as Hammilton, had a more extreme way of thinking. Not all Federalists agreed with him, so the Federalists that weren't as extreme may have wanted a more stronger, centralized Federal government, but nothing to the extent of what the more extreme Federalists, like Hammilton, wanted. Not all Federalists agreed with everything that was written in "The Federalist Papers", even though today, it is still not known if all of the material that makes up the Federalist Papers were written by Hammilton, Madison, and John Jay. In fact, the Federalists themselves were fighting with each other too. So, once again, do not paint a picture that all of the "Federalists" got together and agreed on an overgrown, centralized bureaucracy. You have the extreme Federalists mixed up with those who were much less extreme. Also, in Federalist NO. 84, Hammilton basically says that there is no need to add in the Bill of Rights, so, like I said earlier, most of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution" and if it were up to him alone, he would have written the U.S. Constitution MUCH differently. He just went with the U.S. Constitution because it provided a stronger central government and that was better than nothing, as in a launching ground for future modifications that would mold us into another British empire. Most of the other Federalists did not think the same way. In other words, 5 bucks is better than 2 bucks, but it still isn't good enough because I want a million dollars. Nevertheless, our current form of government would shock even the most extreme Federalist, with MAYBE an exception to Hammilton.



Of course I am aware of "The Federalist Papers", but, once again, they have nothing to do with the constitution itself when talking about it's laws and how they led to todays overgrown bureaucracy. We started talking about the U.S. Constitution and what it was written for and how it led to the centralized bureaucracy that we currently have, so that is why I asked you what does the Constitution itself (as in how it led to todays centralized power) have to do with the Federalists who backed it. I should have worded that better, but I was rushing through it. Anyway, how the Constitution led to the current form centralized power that we now have really doesn't have anything to do with those who backed it, since not all the Federalists agreed on every single thing. We did not start off talking about what person was a Federalist and what kind of Federalist they were, so, once again, that has nothing to do with the constitution in that respect. You went from talking about how the U.S. Constitution led to an overgrown, centralized power to the Federalist agenda, which is, once again, irrelevant because 1. as I already stated, not all Federalists agreed with each other and 2. the Federalists backing the constitution doesn't have much to do with it leading to todays overgrown, centralized government, especially since most Federalists would not agree with how overgrown our government is today. If you wanted to get into the Federalists who backed the U.S. Constitution, then you should have said that about the Federalist Papers to begin with. Make your point clearly and my rebuttals will be clear. Nevertheless, I will guide you to the above rebuttal for the answer to this statement as well, since it perfectly fits the context.




This was simply Federalists and Anti-Federalists fighting, just like how todays major parties fight with each other, but on a much bigger scale. Many Anti-Federalists really had no real solution to the constitution that they were so against either, with maybe the exception of a few, like Jefferson, etc.




Once again, you are obviously misreading my post. I was talking about the constitution allowing for checks and balances in order to prevent a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy, like what we have today. Back then, under the U.S. Constitution, we did not have a centralized bureaucracy, even though the Federal government was a bit more centralized and stronger. There is a difference between more centralized/stronger and an overgrown, centralization of power, like what we currently have. The Constitution, if the government today actually followed it, would not have allowed them to grow so big and, like I already said, most of the Federalists who backed the U.S. Constitution would not be happy with the current form of government and it's size. In fact, the Constitution that was ratified is not the exact same constitution that the more extreme Hammilton Federalists wanted because, due to the large and negative response from the anti-Federalists, state legislatures ended up voting to add the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are the Bill of Rights.



Once again, your opinion. Irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution was pretty much the first of it's kind when it came to true freedom. It is not just another piece of legislation. The Federalists who backed the constitution wanted a stronger central government, not what we have today. Major difference. The states still maintain their sovereignty, to a certain degree, today. The only thing that threatens this is them not holding the Federal government accountable to the U.S. Constitution. I have nothing against a stronger government, but it should always have checks and balances and not be too centralized and overgrown, as it is under the original constitution, not todays central government. There is such a thing as limited, but stronger government.




Lew Rockwell is just giving his opinion at the end of the day. It's just that: an opinion. Our founders wanted a stronger, BUT limited government, that is why we only have three main branches of government under the U.S. Constitution, not six or nine. The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

I guest the point is that our government has already been pre-planned for us before some of us were even born.

[CDB]

A much stronger (limited) central government: yes. A centralized bureaucracy with no checks and balances: no. There is a big difference. The central government did need to be a little stronger and better organized, as it was not under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

According to who? You? Me? Historians? Libertarians? Totalitatarians? The argument here isn't whether you think the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, that's a normative opinion for another thread, I say it's bunk and we can discuss that later if you want.

The argument is over what the constitution did and didn't do, currently does and doesn't do, and what it was originally meant to do. It did not limit exsting government powers; it expanded them, codified them, and centralized them. It does not currently limit government in any way shape or form; it does through construction give justification for any and every expansion of power by those who still see fit to even look for constitutional authority before doing something, and by the neglect of those who do not see fit to look for that authority, it holds no authority and imposes no limitations at all on them. It was not meant to limit government, ever; it was meant to establish and delegate to a central government powers previously vested in a King through tradition, it codified what was presumed, created offices that did not previously exist, provided for the exercise of powers that did not previously exist, and was only 'limited' by the scruples of those few who were able to mobilize some objection to it. The limitations, the checks and balances you seem so intent on, were irrelevant to the people pushing it, and were only regarded and were in fact only the concessions made to the few objectors who had enough time and resources available to oppose it.

You can't say you want to limit something when your overall goal is to establish that very thing. It's contradictory. Either you do or you don't want it. The constitution did not limit the federal government, it was used to establish that very government by the very same people who had no problem with Britain's powers per se, but who just wanted to be the masters of those powers rather than subjected to them. The limitations, checks and balances 'built into it' are no different than the politically correct addendums that get added on to any bill that currently goes through congress in order to get votes from this congressman or that one, or this group of them or that one. The intent of those pushing the bill itself isn't to get the riders through, those riders represent nothing more than that which they were willing to compromise on anyway, and so were included at the behest of others who otherwise would have opposed the bill, or not given a damn and voted 'present'.

If congress were to get a bill going to give tax breaks for health insurance purchases, thats the bill and the idea and the intent. Say the Republicrats are pushing it, their intent is to let people reduce their taxable income by the amount they pay for insurance. That's it. The Demopublicans see it and want to stick on some riders that say only so long as the insurance companies have a certain amount of this or that type of person working there, or some other PC gobbledeegook. The Republicrats don't agree necessarily, but also don't give enough of a **** to oppose the idea, so it's tacked on to the bill so it encounters less resistance and better chance of passing. In the same way the supposed government limitations in the constitution (enumerated and divided powers, different branches, bill of rights, etc.), were just the riders the pushers of the constitution had to include to silence dissent. And even that wasn't enough, there were still bribes and political maneuvering aplenty before it could get ratified. The only reason they are there is because enough people opposed the idea itself to raise enough of a furor to get some riders attached. The intent and goal of the proponents was to establish a central government that had not existed previously, and to give it powers no such government had exercised previously.

The fact is, if the Federal government still followed the constitution to a T, it would be no where near as centralized as it is today, therefore you cannot say the U.S. Constitution is responsible for todays centralized nanny state.

Sure I can. Most if not all of our nanny state is based on the general welfare clause and the inter state commerce clause. Had the constitution not existed, those justifications would simply not exist. The parts of it that aren't ostensibly based on the constitution can't be blamed on the constitution, but it obviously also didn't serve any purpose in terms of limiting or stopping those parts of the nanny state either. In other words no one gave a damn about the enumerated powers, checks and balances, original understanding and/or meaning, and just did what they wanted to anyway. The constitution doesn't carry blame for those parts, but they do serve as an example of the complete ineffectiveness of a written constitution in restraining government.

Furthermore, you still cannot state the mechanisms of the constitution that were, as you say, responsible for todays centralized government. That is because there aren't any. All you have done thus far is cite theoretical jibberish.

And you have cited... what exactly? You have stated the constitution didn't provide for the centralization of power while at the same time admitting it provided for the establishment of a central government which previously did not exist and explicitly gave it powers which the recently over thrown government had presumed but hadn't codified. Which is, well, confused to say the least. You try and excuse that by saying it was a 'necessary thing', which is arguable and a matter of extreme opinion, and does not in any way change the facts of the issue. There was no central government, then there was. There was no power to tax, then there was. There was no president, no congress, no cabinent, no judiciary, then there was. Just because you think it was a good idea and a dandy improvement and such doesn't change the fact that this is in fact what happened. I may shoot someone to stop them from committing a crime, so it's arguably a 'necessary' action. That doesn't change the fact that I did with regard to intent and action, shoot someone. So, as often happens in these arguments I notice, I'm pointing to the reality of what happened and saying that's what happened and likely what I think was intended. You're saying what happened didn't happen, and even though it did it was a good thing and here's your opinion of why it was a good thing. And I'm the theorist here?

Unless of course you want to argue that those pushing the constitution didn't want to establish a central government but did, I guess by accident or something? Like they were out running errands and when they were walking up their driveway to their door, they noticed that a central government followed them home. Got to keep it now, what if there's no one to feed it? So they let it in and oh, look, now we decided to keep it, we just sort of noticed that we have all these people around looking for positions of power in the central government. What a lucky find, that. Because nothing is worse than adopting a central government and not being lucky enough to find some good and honest people to staff the newly available positions of authority. Because people, they don't actually look for ways to expand their power and such through political means. Or if they do, they're honest about and just call it a power grab. No, more often than not they just sort of fall into it, the same way apparently guys occassionally trip and fall with their boners right in their best friend's wife's snatch or something. It's an accident, it's not intentional. Or they had intended to limit it, so they were playing Just the Tip, but it went all the way in anyway. Either way their intention was never to actually have sex.

Under the U.S. Constitution, every single state is still sovereign. Although there really is no Constitutional procedure for State secession, states will not be stopped from seceding under the penalty of law, therefore it is still possible.

Are you aware of he Civil War? The last states that tried that, well they lost I believe one out of every four of their male population at the end of their attempted secession, which ended with them still a part of the union. Yeah the supreme court, which technically had the right to rule, said they had the right to secession. Guess what? The executive branch didn't give a ****, and the constitutional interpretation of the court, while correct, did not limit the executive's power. And over a 100 years later most people celebrate that fact. You have to question the effectiveness of a document whose purported purpose is to limit the government in the face of several facts: the people in government by and large don't want their power limited; the people outside of government by and large don't want the power of government limited aside from a few Holy Cow issues that, as cows in India, are expected not to be messed with; and if all that's necessary to negate the limiting powers of a written constitution is to ignore it, well then that's kind of pathetic. Something with true power to do something can't simply be ignored on that issue, and if it can then it is powerless in and of itself.

However there are tons of people who did not ignore it, those are the people who moved into positions of power when the new government was formed, and those who have served in those functions and the many created since over the years to those in power this very day, which by all measures has done nothing but grow. So maybe, just maybe, that was its true intent, and that is what its true power is: to create, centralize, and expand, government power. When people tell you the function of X is to do Y, but it always seems to lead to Z in reality, and those self same people have a vested interest in your continued belief that the function of X is Y, maybe their real purpose is actually to accomplish Z. Theory has to prove its merit in reality. And reality says our government has always grown, always expanded, always centralized, and done so with and without constitutional support. So I think it's at least possible, more than likely in fact, that growth was the original intent with a sooth song of limitations to appease the few people who gave enough of a crap to maybe thing unlimited central government wasn't a great idea. The original pushers got most of what they wanted, and to date it doesn't seem like anyone has been denied to any great degree. And we're probably on the verge of losing the first and second ammendment for good at this point, as both parties seem hostile to both at root. Certainly Obama and Co. will have no problem limiting speech in various mediums, and will have plenty of precedent to go on with regard to regulation of the air waves and licensing of TV stations and such, speech codes and restrictions.

Furthermore, don't act like the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, when originally written, were established to not form a more perfect Union and a stronger centralized government.

When did I say that? I said the constitution was a centralization and expansion of power and that was its intent. It was, and it was. The previous charters are relevant in that they were much looser unions and obviously, if people hadn't wanted the powers of the proto federal government centralized and expanded, they wouldn't have presented a new framework in the form of the constitution that did just that.

I am talking about the Federalists, like Hammilton. In reality, many of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution."

Let me explain something to you. Hamilton's ideals are ****. He spent half his life explaining why he didn't mean what he said in the other half. He was on board with the VA and KY resolutions of 1798 and spent his latter years explaing how he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently wrote, ditto with The Federalist Papers. So looking for consistency in Hamilton's positions is like looking for a live cat in a Chinese food restaurant. You're not going to find it. He was one of the main and most prolific authors of The Federalist Papers arguing in favor of the constitution, it is selective in the extreme not to mention intellectually dishonest to use his well known inconsistency in position to say he was against the constitution. He was for and against damn near everything depending on what portion of his life you choose to pick from. He probably disagreed with his choice of dinner for the night by the time he was ready for bed. Joseph Charles is one person who has commented on Hamilton's inconsistencies and chastized historians/biographers for glossing them over, as has Thomas E. Woods, Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo, and plenty of others.

Of course I am aware of "The Federalist Papers", but, once again, they have nothing to do with the constitution itself when talking about it's laws and how they led to todays overgrown bureaucracy.

I say they do. You don't get to dictate the terms of the argument like Bill O'Reilly or something. If you want that type of debate, get yourself a TV show where you can decide what the reasonable terms of debate are and shout anyone down who offends your sensibilities or deviates from what you think is the acceptable opposition position.

We started talking about the U.S. Constitution and what it was written for and how it led to the centralized bureaucracy that we currently have, so that is why I asked you what does the Constitution itself (as in how it led to todays centralized power) have to do with the Federalists who backed it.

And I have explained, more than adequately. I have yet to read an explanation of how the constitution both did and did not provide for the expansion, codification, and centralization of the government. That you think it was a good idea is irrelevant, it doesn't change what the intent of the constitution was, which was just that: the codification, expansion and centralization of power into a new federal governing body. The limitations on government that are supposedly built in were only allowed in as appeasement as any other legislative modification or rider is done today, just to make sure it goes through. To suggest the constitution didn't expand and centralize power when that's exactly what it did and what the intent of its drafters was, is ridiculous. And it is responsible for our current nanny state in that the limitations never really mattered to the drafters, nor apparently anyone else who followed, as the general trend has always been an expansion and further centralization of power.

And it makes perfect sense that this would be the trend if you regard it as any other piece of legislation. Analogously, the health care bill that the Democrats end up pushing under Obama will be intended as a step towards full nationalization of the US health care system. That they can't do nationalization right away and get everything they want because of a need to appease some Republicans and some significant portion of the population doesn't mean their intent is anything else. Nor will anyone but the clueless be surprised when full on nationalization and a single payer system is eventually proposed and passed. That is unless of course the dollar collapses first and we're all living in yurts by the end of Democrat control, in which case the Republicans will push through some watered down version of the same thing if possible because at base it's what they want too, just slightly modified.

[CDB]

Anyway, how the Constitution led to the current form centralized power that we now have really doesn't have anything to do with those who backed it, since not all the Federalists agreed on every single thing.

I disagree. Our current major parties disagree voluably on a lot of stuff, supposedly. But somehow or another, aside from freaks like Ron Paul, the legislation always seems to get through, with tons of riders and **** happening under cover, and then it 'goes to conference' and the real work gets done, and nothing happens but some legislation/regulations change slightly with others being created and/or expanded, and the end result is always an increase in power. You keep arguing it seems that there's this major disconnect between intent and action.

I'm saying two things. One, intent is irrelevant, as in the great Judaic tradition of actions trumping intent. Would you rather have a government and a constitution deeply committed to limiting government but which never seems to be able to do that, or a government made of people and a constitution that regardless of their varying intents, sticks to a few basic enumerated powers? And two, I think you need to entertain the possibility, and I'm of a virtual certainty, that you're wrong on their intent, as demonstrated by their actions, results, and subsequent developments.

Once again, you are obviously misreading my post. I was talking about the constitution allowing for checks and balances in order to prevent a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy, like what we have today. Back then, under the U.S. Constitution, we did not have a centralized bureaucracy,

Yes we did. The constitution created it, and you have admitted as such. That you were happier with that level of government and thought it appropriate, our current one too over bearing, and the previous one too weak, is irrelevant. The constitution established our central federal government. It's ludicrous to argue that it didn't do and didn't intend to do what it was worded and intended to do, and actually did: establish a central government of expanded powers which didn't exist prior. I'm not misreading your posts, I am unconcerned with equivocations and justifications for your normative judgements about whether or not it was a good idea or necessary. What happened is what's at issue, and whether or not it was good or necessary has no bearing on what actually happened and what the intent was. Our current congressional dip****s are going to blow our health care system out of the water, and a decade from now it's going to cost much more, the quality and supply will be far less, and people will be pissed. And despite my cynic streak I doubt that's what all politicians who are advocating for this legislation want. But their intent will not change the reality of their results. And many intend for those results to occur. Unions will be very happy to push their health care costs on to the tax payers, and some in congress are knowingly helping to do just that. Lawyers will have a field day, some in congress know and are helping for that reason. Insurance companies will get a guaranteed revenue stream, some in congress are pushing for that very reason. And what gets passed will be by and large what they want, with a few scraps thrown to the opposition so they allow it through, even though they really wouldn't otherwise support it at all.

even though the Federal government was a bit more centralized and stronger. There is a difference between more centralized/stronger and an overgrown, centralization of power, like what we currently have.

That is a matter of opinion and there is no objective measure to determine the right amount of central government. Some people want more than we currently have, some less. Some think it's just right but should change its focus a little, etc. Once again you're saying the constitution did exactly what I say it did, but saying because it's 'worse' now that it was better then, and so it really didn't do what I said it did. Hogwash. A progression is a progression. If I'm on the 50 yard line of a football field and liberty is at one end and tyranny the other and my teams gets possession and we get to the 10 yard line and almost score liberty, and the oppossing team intercepts and gets back to the liberty 40, so what? It's still a progression towards tyranny. Sure we were ten yards closer to tyranny before and then almost got to the Liberty end zone before they took the ball back and went back to our 40. So what? It's still a specific progression from liberty to tyranny. That the net result is in our favor for a fleeting moment is irrelevant. And, as is the case with the government and the constitution, if there are simply no net gains of yardage toward liberty over time and all the plays end up with us a little closer to the tyranny end zone, you have to have your head in the sand to miss the facts that the liberty team ain't cutting it and their plays (the constitution according to you) suck.

The Constitution, if the government today actually followed it, would not have allowed them to grow so big and,

So what? If its purpose is to limit government and it is completely impotent to do so, it's irrelevant. You may as well give cops a piece of tissue paper as a chest protector and then complain when they get shot and killed that the tissue paper was supposed to stop the bullet, and if the bullet had only realized it was supposed to stop at the tissue paper, our cops would still be alive...

It is not just another piece of legislation.

Why, because you say so? There are plenty of legislative acts which themselves are unique. So what?

Lew Rockwell is just giving his opinion at the end of the day. It's just that: an opinion. Our founders wanted a stronger, BUT limited government, that is why we only have three main branches of government under the U.S. Constitution, not six or nine.

I never said he was giving anything but. However Hoppe has done the research. If you want to limit government, you don't expand it, centralize it, and give it explicit powers which were at best implied previously. Plain and simple. The 'limitations' they wanted were no different than the riders on current bills, and were totally ineffective. Proof your argument is off base is the exact same argument could be made now, that our level of government now is 'just right', that the constitution has been stretched to just the amount that was intended, depending on which of the framers you poll, and that anything less is too little and anything more is too much. It's all relative and as such, not really useful. In reality the government either does or doesn't exist, does or does not have the powers, the constitution does or does not limit it, and the government is either stable in its scope of power, progressing or retracting. The federal government didn't exist, the constitution framed it, its ratification brought it into power and in many ways vested it with powers beyond that exercised by the crown, just not as innovative. It is nothing more than a power grab, plain and simple. Whether or not you or I think it was reasonable then, now, or somewhere along the line, or needs even more power, isn't the issue.

The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

If the constitution says they can't, and they do it anyway, then by definition it doesn't limit their power. If it limited their power, it wouldn't have happened. In reality it is a piece of paper, constructed upon and ignored at will, and so largely irrelevant except as an historical example of what was considered an acceptable scope of government power at the time, and what its proponents had to sacrifice to get it through. As such it's no more limiting or powerful than any other piece of legislation, and the 'limitations', some of which by our standards were completely ignored almost right off the bat, are merely the record of what the most powerful special interests of the time, including the people, simply wouldn't tolerate at any level. But what the people will or will not tolerate is not fixed, nor is what they desire, what they think is acceptable.

[Jayhawkk]

I forgot about this thread in the middle of my recent move... I'll need to come back and catch up since there seems to have been a massive battle of quote-fu going on.

CDB- I still haven't looked up anything to date but I did just read your follow up reply and have to agree with you on the point of Obama and relevance.

[bi0hazurd]

LOL Iclicked cuz i thought it said obama DECEPTICON video

[CDB]

LOL Iclicked cuz i thought it said obama DECEPTICON video

That's what I thought originally. I thought he was going to turn into a Mack truck or something and plow through an APAC meeting.

[Bass Master]

According to who? You? Me? Historians? Libertarians? Totalitatarians? The argument here isn't whether you think the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, that's a normative opinion for another thread, I say it's bunk and we can discuss that later if you want.

Wrong. Do not try to twist things again just because you are wrong. No one said the argument was about whether the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, but my answer to your rebuttal about the constitution representing a "much stronger central government" was supposed to differentiate between a stronger government and a centralized, out of control bureaucracy with no checks and balances. This answer was appropriate because one of your points was that the constitution itself did not protect our freedoms because it led to a stronger, more centralized form of government. The orginal argument was about the constitution being responsible for todays centralized form of government - as in how it led to todays centralization of power - and what it was written for. Please read your earlier post:

Constitutions do not restrain government nor protect individual liberty. Their effect is to centralize power and judgement of the proper exercise of power, and eventually lead to a destruction of freedom and liberty.

As you can see, you basically said the constitution was responsible for todays centralization of power and that it destroyed "freedom and liberty." So what I said about it making a stronger central government, but not a centralized power with no checks and balances does apply. By the way, freedom and liberty is pretty much the same thing.

The argument is over what the constitution did and didn't do, currently does and doesn't do, and what it was originally meant to do.

Again, the orginal argument was over 1.how the constitution is responsible for todays centralization of power and 2. what it was meant to do, not what the constitution did and didn't do, because that is too broad of a statement, given the specific subject that we have been discussing.

It did not limit exsting government powers; it expanded them, codified them, and centralized them.

Once again, making unfounded claims. I will ask you again, if the U.S. Constitution lead to todays centralization of power, as you have said many times, then through what mechanisms did this occur? Which constitutional mechanisms were responsible? Do not just make claims without saying how and listing the mechanisms involved.

It does not currently limit government in any way shape or form; it does through construction give justification for any and every expansion of power by those who still see fit to even look for constitutional authority before doing something, and by the neglect of those who do not see fit to look for that authority, it holds no authority and imposes no limitations at all on them.

As usual, you are obviously wrong. The U.S. Constitution itself does limit government. I have already listed one constitutional mechanism that helped limit government, to a certain degree: legal tender. The Constitution only allowing for three main branches of the federal government also helps limit government. The Bill of Rights also limits government, to a certain degree. And there is also the Supreme Court (Judicial branch), which interprets the laws, declaring laws constitutional and unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court needs to do a better job in that area today. But the original system itself that was set up by the constitution limits government, to a certain point. The only way the federal government can grow larger and become more tyrannical is by breaking the laws that are outlined in the constitution. We know this obvious fact because the track record of constitutional laws the federal government has broken grows larger when it grows larger and becomes more centralized, therefore we can say this is a direct result of the government breaking it's own laws, not the constitution itself. As I said earlier, no constitution can stop a government from becoming tyrannical if the entire body of the government itself has a common agenda and the people do not hold them accountable. Laws only hold people accountable for their own actions when there is a force holding them accountable to those laws by enforcing them. To say that isn't the case would be like saying Police officers don't have to physically enforce their state laws because those laws are already established on paper, etc.

It was not meant to limit government, ever; it was meant to establish and delegate to a central government powers previously vested in a King through tradition, it codified what was presumed, created offices that did not previously exist, provided for the exercise of powers that did not previously exist, and was only 'limited' by the scruples of those few who were able to mobilize some objection to it.

Once again, this is your opinion, not a historical fact. The Constitution was established because, under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the government was an ineffective, weak government, especially when it came to foreign polices, military, and commerce issues. We therefore needed something with a better overall system of governance that had a more solid foundation to it while, at the same time, not allowing for an over-centralization of power with no checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution provided that.

The limitations, the checks and balances you seem so intent on, were irrelevant to the people pushing it, and were only regarded and were in fact only the concessions made to the few objectors who had enough time and resources available to oppose it.

Not true. The Constitution, before it had the Bill of Rights added, still had checks and balances, but not to the degree that it did before they added those 10 amendments.

You can't say you want to limit something when your overall goal is to establish that very thing. It's contradictory. Either you do or you don't want it.

No, because I want limited government - as in no bigger than what the constitution provides for, therefore what I am saying is not contradictory. Once again, twisting things.
The centralization of todays government is not authorized by the constitution. For example, article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in school curricula and to take the teaching rights out of the hands of parents like they do today. That's just one good example. Again, nothing is contradictory about what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about.

The constitution did not limit the federal government, it was used to establish that very government by the very same people who had no problem with Britain's powers per se, but who just wanted to be the masters of those powers rather than subjected to them.

Another personal opinion. The constitution itself does limit the federal government past the point that is naturally allowed, as I have already outlined above by using many different examples.

The limitations, checks and balances 'built into it' are no different than the politically correct addendums that get added on to any bill that currently goes through congress in order to get votes from this congressman or that one, or this group of them or that one.

Okay then. So those added onto The Patriot Act are no different than those in the checks and balances provided by U.S. Constitution? That's a stupid and absurd statement.

If congress were to get a bill going to give tax breaks for health insurance purchases, thats the bill and the idea and the intent. Say the Republicrats are pushing it, their intent is to let people reduce their taxable income by the amount they pay for insurance. That's it. The Demopublicans see it and want to stick on some riders that say only so long as the insurance companies have a certain amount of this or that type of person working there, or some other PC gobbledeegook. The Republicrats don't agree necessarily, but also don't give enough of a **** to oppose the idea, so it's tacked on to the bill so it encounters less resistance and better chance of passing.

That is because congress is out of control today. They do not follow the constituion. Irrelevant

In the same way the supposed government limitations in the constitution (enumerated and divided powers, different branches, bill of rights, etc.), were just the riders the pushers of the constitution had to include to silence dissent.

Enough with your crazy conspiracy theories. This is not a historical fact.

And even that wasn't enough, there were still bribes and political maneuvering aplenty before it could get ratified. The only reason they are there is because enough people opposed the idea itself to raise enough of a furor to get some riders attached. The intent and goal of the proponents was to establish a central government that had not existed previously, and to give it powers no such government had exercised previously.

A constitution was in the process of being denied or established, therefore there was no real legal authority in that area not allowing certain politicians to do whatever they had to do, to a certain degree, in order to get it passed. Today, however, we have a constitution of laws established and for politicians to ignore or violate those laws is unlawful, therefore what you say by using that analogy is once again irrelevant. Lobbyists, for example, come between the wishes of the people and their representatives who, under the constitution, are supposed to represent them, not various money/financial interests, therefore that is corruption of government (which stems from breaking the constitution) rather than the constitution allowing it. The intent and goal of the proponents of the constitution was to establish a central government with checks and balances so that the union can become a free country in which it governs itself. I hate to burst your bubble, but there was no sinister conspiracy to create an over-centralized, fascist empire, etc., between our founders.

Sure I can. Most if not all of our nanny state is based on the general welfare clause and the inter state commerce clause. Had the constitution not existed, those justifications would simply not exist.

Not true. What parts of the U.S. Constitution specifically allow for a nanny state? Stick to facts, not unfounded opinions.

The parts of it that aren't ostensibly based on the constitution can't be blamed on the constitution, but it obviously also didn't serve any purpose in terms of limiting or stopping those parts of the nanny state either.

That's because the government is abusing their powers. No constitution can stop a country from having a fascist form of government if the people do not stop it by using the laws outlined in their constitution. The same rule applies here. If people do not hold the government acountable for the laws it breaks, then the constitution itself will not stop it from becoming fascist. This is why I said the constitution was just a guideline, nothing more, really. But I am for allowing amendments to the constitution that better safeguard our freedoms and do not allow this to happen so easily. No one ever said the constitution was a perfect holy document. It's a start. We can make it better with amendments that, like I said, safeguard our freedoms and specifically limit government, but that would take a country of sheep to wake up, which I question.

[Bass Master]

In other words no one gave a damn about the enumerated powers, checks and balances, original understanding and/or meaning, and just did what they wanted to anyway. The constitution doesn't carry blame for those parts, but they do serve as an example of the complete ineffectiveness of a written constitution in restraining government.

Once again, when a government as a whole becomes fascist, NO constitution can stop this from happening, unless the people use it as a guideline and stop it from happening. The people are to blame here, as they are in almost every fascist form of government.

And you have cited... what exactly? You have stated the constitution didn't provide for the centralization of power while at the same time admitting it provided for the establishment of a central government which previously did not exist and explicitly gave it powers which the recently over thrown government had presumed but hadn't codified.

No, I said the constitution didn't lead todays centralization of power (because our government has never been this overgrown, this centralized under the constitution before), although it did provide for a stronger, more effective, more centralized federal government. There is a difference between mroe centralized and over-centralized. The centralization of our current government cannot be compared to that under the constitution when the government actually did follow it.

Which is, well, confused to say the least. You try and excuse that by saying it was a 'necessary thing', which is arguable and a matter of extreme opinion, and does not in any way change the facts of the issue.

No confusion, you are just not reading my post properly. And your post is full of extreme opinion also, so do not preach to me about that.

There was no central government, then there was. There was no power to tax, then there was. There was no president, no congress, no cabinent, no judiciary, then there was.

There was a congress of confederation before the constitution, or are you talking about way before that? If the latter is right, then that's what happens in the evolution of every country/government. There is no army, no president/king, no government, then there is. So what's your point? Are you saying no government/anarchism is the solution?

Just because you think it was a good idea and a dandy improvement and such doesn't change the fact that this is in fact what happened. I may shoot someone to stop them from committing a crime, so it's arguably a 'necessary' action. That doesn't change the fact that I did with regard to intent and action, shoot someone. So, as often happens in these arguments I notice, I'm pointing to the reality of what happened and saying that's what happened and likely what I think was intended. You're saying what happened didn't happen, and even though it did it was a good thing and here's your opinion of why it was a good thing. And I'm the theorist here?

No, all you have done so far is make unfounded statements and call them facts. Then you cite quack-pot theorists like Lew Rockwell and make it look like they're facts. I am stating the historical facts and you are denying them. You are saying the constitution is responsible for todays centralization of power without stating the constitutional mechanisms that were 'supposedly' responsible for it.

Unless of course you want to argue that those pushing the constitution didn't want to establish a central government but did, I guess by accident or something?

No, that is not what I said. I guess you just cannot read. I said that they wanted to establish a central government, but not the overgrown, centralized beaurocracy that we have today, which is one of the few things that started this argument. The fact is, the framers of the constitution did not want todays centralized beaurocracy, therefore you cannot blame it on the constitution - especially since no constitutional mechanisms allow for this.

Like they were out running errands and when they were walking up their driveway to their door, they noticed that a central government followed them home. Got to keep it now, what if there's no one to feed it? So they let it in and oh, look, now we decided to keep it, we just sort of noticed that we have all these people around looking for positions of power in the central government. What a lucky find, that.

You are really making yourself look stupid, because I never said. You seem to forget that, once again, there is a difference between more centralized/stronger and over-centralized.

Because nothing is worse than adopting a central government and not being lucky enough to find some good and honest people to staff the newly available positions of authority.

That is because that's governments nature. This is why an alert, responsive, and educated public is essential for the servival of liberty. You seem to miss this part quite a bit in your posts.

Are you aware of he Civil War? The last states that tried that, well they lost I believe one out of every four of their male population at the end of their attempted secession, which ended with them still a part of the union.

Each state today is sovereign, to a certain degree. Governers have no trouble telling the Feds to back off over certain disputes all the time. The only problem is the state governments need to hold the federal government accountable for breaking it's own law and overriding state sovereignty. The civil war didn't have enough states backing the break-up. It was Union vs Confederates. It wasn't the same thing as having multiple states break away from the union from different parts of the United States. The Union states did not like the Confederate states and vice versa. There werent multiple states breaking off from the union and uniting in the movement themselves. It probably would have been a different outcome if (what were) multiple Union AND Confederate states broke off from the union together. Nevertheless, no state of any union is that sovereign where they can just break off, otherwise unions would consistently change and states would easily break off from their union over stupid disputes too.

Yeah the supreme court, which technically had the right to rule, said they had the right to secession. Guess what? The executive branch didn't give a ****, and the constitutional interpretation of the court, while correct, did not limit the executive's power.

This is because our government is becoming fascist and, if they don't ignore their own laws, they make them up along the way. Nevertheless, I am for amendments to our constitution that would be more effective at stopping this. But once again, that would mean a mass awakening and a revolution, in the sense that Americans would have to get active and demand it and so on. But I don't have much faith in that anymore....

And over a 100 years later most people celebrate that fact.

Yes they do - especially corrupt politicians and lobbyists.

You have to question the effectiveness of a document whose purported purpose is to limit the government in the face of several facts: the people in government by and large don't want their power limited; the people outside of government by and large don't want the power of government limited aside from a few Holy Cow issues that, as cows in India, are expected not to be messed with; and if all that's necessary to negate the limiting powers of a written constitution is to ignore it, well then that's kind of pathetic. Something with true power to do something can't simply be ignored on that issue, and if it can then it is powerless in and of itself.

Hmm, I never said the constitution was fullproof or perfect, otherwise I would not have said that it needed some amendments to really limit government and better safeguard our liberties. But yes, government doesn't want it's power limited because that's the nature of government. They always abuse their powers and grow bigger. This is why I said that it would take a mass awakening to change this, but, given the current situation, I don't think that will happen and if any kind of 'revolution' happens due to this economic situation, it will most likely be a somewhat violent one that could lead to another form of government that neither of us will like, since most Americans today are compartmentalized and do not see the big picture.

However there are tons of people who did not ignore it, those are the people who moved into positions of power when the new government was formed, and those who have served in those functions and the many created since over the years to those in power this very day, which by all measures has done nothing but grow. So maybe, just maybe, that was its true intent, and that is what its true power is: to create, centralize, and expand, government power.

Obviously, because, once again, that's governments nature.

When people tell you the function of X is to do Y, but it always seems to lead to Z in reality, and those self same people have a vested interest in your continued belief that the function of X is Y, maybe their real purpose is actually to accomplish Z. Theory has to prove its merit in reality. And reality says our government has always grown, always expanded, always centralized, and done so with and without constitutional support. So I think it's at least possible, more than likely in fact, that growth was the original intent with a sooth song of limitations to appease the few people who gave enough of a crap to maybe thing unlimited central government wasn't a great idea. The original pushers got most of what they wanted, and to date it doesn't seem like anyone has been denied to any great degree. And we're probably on the verge of losing the first and second ammendment for good at this point, as both parties seem hostile to both at root. Certainly Obama and Co. will have no problem limiting speech in various mediums, and will have plenty of precedent to go on with regard to regulation of the air waves and licensing of TV stations and such, speech codes and restrictions.

I don't think any of the framers of the constitution, even though they wanted a stronger central government, wanted a out of control, over-centralized, bureaucracy like what we have today - especially one with no checks and balances whatsoever. This is my point. But yes, we are on the verge of losing the rights that we already have under our constitution, which is very dangerous. After all, every fascist government has to disarm the public first. To lose the first and second ammendment, at this point, would surely mean that the candlelight of liberty (whats left of liberty) has officially burned out.

When did I say that? I said the constitution was a centralization and expansion of power and that was its intent. It was, and it was. The previous charters are relevant in that they were much looser unions and obviously, if people hadn't wanted the powers of the proto federal government centralized and expanded, they wouldn't have presented a new framework in the form of the constitution that did just that.

I never said you said that. I said "don't act". It seemed to that you were making it look like the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were somehow better. Maybe it was better in one sense, but it still had many flaws, one being a very weak government.

Let me explain something to you. Hamilton's ideals are ****. He spent half his life explaining why he didn't mean what he said in the other half. He was on board with the VA and KY resolutions of 1798 and spent his latter years explaing how he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently wrote, ditto with The Federalist Papers. So looking for consistency in Hamilton's positions is like looking for a live cat in a Chinese food restaurant. You're not going to find it. He was one of the main and most prolific authors of The Federalist Papers arguing in favor of the constitution, it is selective in the extreme not to mention intellectually dishonest to use his well known inconsistency in position to say he was against the constitution. He was for and against damn near everything depending on what portion of his life you choose to pick from. He probably disagreed with his choice of dinner for the night by the time he was ready for bed. Joseph Charles is one person who has commented on Hamilton's inconsistencies and chastized historians/biographers for glossing them over, as has Thomas E. Woods, Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo, and plenty of others.

Hammilton was a walking contradiction, but that does not matter to me. What matters is what he believed at that time, which is what was responsible for his actions. Some murderers say they've changed and do not believe in killing anymore. That doesn't put aside the fact that they still killed people. The fact is, at the time the constitution was established, Hammilton did not fully agree with it and would have written something completely different if it were up to him.

I say they do. You don't get to dictate the terms of the argument like Bill O'Reilly or something. If you want that type of debate, get yourself a TV show where you can decide what the reasonable terms of debate are and shout anyone down who offends your sensibilities or deviates from what you think is the acceptable opposition position.

I am not 'dictating the terms of the arguement.' We were going over the constitution, as in the specific laws that supposedly lead to todays centralization of power. Talking about the Federalist papers when I ask you what constitutional mechanisms were responsible for todays centralization of power is pretty much irrelevant to the questions asked. Don't be so defensive like Bill O'Reilly either.

And I have explained, more than adequately. I have yet to read an explanation of how the constitution both did and did not provide for the expansion, codification, and centralization of the government. That you think it was a good idea is irrelevant, it doesn't change what the intent of the constitution was, which was just that: the codification, expansion and centralization of power into a new federal governing body.

Again, I never said the constitution didn't provide for a stronger, more centralized federal government. I said it didn't lead to todays overgrown, centralization of power. Big difference. And the constitituion allowing for a stronger federal government being a bad thing is your opinion.

The limitations on government that are supposedly built in were only allowed in as appeasement as any other legislative modification or rider is done today, just to make sure it goes through. To suggest the constitution didn't expand and centralize power when that's exactly what it did and what the intent of its drafters was, is ridiculous.

Once again, I never said the constitution didn't provide for a stronger, more centralized federal government. I said it didn't lead to todays overgrown, centralization of power.

And it is responsible for our current nanny state....

That is your opinion. The constitution is not responsible for todays nanny state because it does not allow it, otherwise we already would of had a nanny state within the first 80 years of the constitutions history. The government not following the constitution and the failure of the people, along with the constitution not being more safeguarded with better amendments, is what has led to todays nanny state.

And it makes perfect sense that this would be the trend if you regard it as any other piece of legislation. Analogously, the health care bill that the Democrats end up pushing under Obama will be intended as a step towards full nationalization of the US health care system. That they can't do nationalization right away and get everything they want because of a need to appease some Republicans and some significant portion of the population doesn't mean their intent is anything else. Nor will anyone but the clueless be surprised when full on nationalization and a single payer system is eventually proposed and passed. That is unless of course the dollar collapses first and we're all living in yurts by the end of Democrat control, in which case the Republicans will push through some watered down version of the same thing if possible because at base it's what they want too, just slightly modified.

No, because that piece of legislation (the constitution) doesn't allow the government to take over health care - or will you say that the constitution provides for the nationalization of health care too and blame it on the document, rather than an out of control government? This is because we have a out of control congress/government that is not following the constitution. Nevertheless, every overblown government eventually has it's end and this will happen with the dollar sooner or later, since no paper money ever stands the test of time.


yyyy

[Bass Master]

You keep arguing it seems that there's this major disconnect between intent and action.

The argument didn't get started over intent and action, so I don't know where you pull that from.

Would you rather have a government and a constitution deeply committed to limiting government but which never seems to be able to do that, or a government made of people and a constitution that regardless of their varying intents, sticks to a few basic enumerated powers?

1. Both depend on the people to remain alertive and watchful and 2. that is pretty much impossible because it's governments nature to grow bigger and abuse it's power, so no government alone will just 'stick to a few basic enumerated powers.' This is why the people have to make sure the government is kept in check, in that respect. Governments only grow bigger and abuse their power and the people of that country fail to do their jobs. After all, freedom isn't free. It's a full time job.

And two, I think you need to entertain the possibility, and I'm of a virtual certainty, that you're wrong on their intent, as demonstrated by their actions, results, and subsequent developments.

Demonstrated by their actions? Their actions show that they wanted a stronger central government and a better foundation. I agree with this. Their actions or intent does not imply that they wanted a out of control, over-centralized government like what we have today.

Yes we did.

No, we did not have a centralized, out of control bureaucracy back during the very early years of our country, when the government actually followed the constitution. There was no DMV, no Dept. of Education, no IRS, etc.

The constitution created it, and you have admitted as such.

Putting words in my mouth now are we? I never said the constitution created todays centralized, out of control bureaucracy. Please show me where I said this.

That you were happier with that level of government and thought it appropriate, our current one too over bearing, and the previous one too weak, is irrelevant.

Okay, and your opinion about government under the early years of the constitution being too big and not like our constitutional form of government is also irrelevant. Again, practice what you preach.

The constitution established our central federal government. It's ludicrous to argue that it didn't do and didn't intend to do what it was worded and intended to do, and actually did: establish a central government of expanded powers which didn't exist prior.

Yes, it established our federal government, but that does not mean anything, as in that mechanism itself leading to todays centralization of power. The constitution established a limited form of central of government with checks and balances. The constitution says what the federal government can do. It does not permit it to do many of the things it is doing today, like getting involved with education or health care. So you cannot say it led to todays centrilzation of power and nanny state if you can't name the mechanisms of the constitution that supposedly allowed it.

I'm not misreading your posts, I am unconcerned with equivocations and justifications for your normative judgements about whether or not it was a good idea or necessary.

Yes, you are misreading them.

What happened is what's at issue, and whether or not it was good or necessary has no bearing on what actually happened and what the intent was. Our current congressional dip****s are going to blow our health care system out of the water, and a decade from now it's going to cost much more, the quality and supply will be far less, and people will be pissed. And despite my cynic streak I doubt that's what all politicians who are advocating for this legislation want. But their intent will not change the reality of their results. And many intend for those results to occur. Unions will be very happy to push their health care costs on to the tax payers, and some in congress are knowingly helping to do just that. Lawyers will have a field day, some in congress know and are helping for that reason. Insurance companies will get a guaranteed revenue stream, some in congress are pushing for that very reason. And what gets passed will be by and large what they want, with a few scraps thrown to the opposition so they allow it through, even though they really wouldn't otherwise support it at all.

Doesn't matter what their itnentions are. It's black or it's white. Intentions and actions don't matter when a law does not allow those actions to be exercised; the constitution does not allow government to run health care and whether they want to do that or not to our health care system still does not put aside the fact that it is unconstitutional. If they truly followed the constitution, they would understand what the federal government, etc., is allowed to do and only make up laws that do not violate those enumerated powers, etc.

That is a matter of opinion and there is no objective measure to determine the right amount of central government. Some people want more than we currently have, some less. Some think it's just right but should change its focus a little, etc.

No, this is not my opinion. I am talking about the amount of central government that the constitution allows for. It does not allow the government to run every area of health care, the economy, education, etc. When the federal government does these things, it's too big, by constitutional definition.

Once again you're saying the constitution did exactly what I say it did, but saying because it's 'worse' now that it was better then, and so it really didn't do what I said it did. Hogwash. A progression is a progression.

No, not hogwash. According to the model of government established by the constitution, there is a difference between too much and just enough (as in what the constitution allows). It allows for a stronegr, more centralized federal government, but not an overgrown, over-centralized federal government. There is a big difference and you can twist that anyway you want and go around it with words and theoretical jibberish, but that's the fact.

It's still a progression towards tyranny.

That's your opinion. Again, irrelevant.

Sure we were ten yards closer to tyranny before and then almost got to the Liberty end zone before they took the ball back and went back to our 40. So what? It's still a specific progression from liberty to tyranny.

Once again, the constituional being tyrannical is your opinion. Irrelevant. Stick to the facts.

So what? If its purpose is to limit government and it is completely impotent to do so, it's irrelevant. You may as well give cops a piece of tissue paper as a chest protector and then complain when they get shot and killed that the tissue paper was supposed to stop the bullet, and if the bullet had only realized it was supposed to stop at the tissue paper, our cops would still be alive...

No, because that chest protecter we call a bullet proof vest doesn't depend on anything else to stop that bullet other than it's own vest pad that is needed. The constitution, on the other hand, depends on a public that holds government accountible to the constitution because, as I have already said, it is a guideline, not something to ensure our freedoms while we, the people, do nothing to safeguard them. Freedom isn't given to us. This analogy doesn't even fit the right context.

Why, because you say so? There are plenty of legislative acts which themselves are unique. So what?

And vice versa. It's not just a piece of legislation because you say so.

If you want to limit government, you don't expand it, centralize it, and give it explicit powers which were at best implied previously. Plain and simple.

Once again, that is your opinion of what limited government should be.

The 'limitations' they wanted were no different than the riders on current bills, and were totally ineffective.

They weren't ineffective. Many of these limitations, like legal tender, are very clear, but, once again, whena government as a whole becomes tyrannical, no constitution will stop it because they have a common goal, an agenda. This is why it's the failure of the people that is at fault here, not the constitution. But you wouldn't like toadmit that, now would you?

Proof your argument is off base is the exact same argument could be made now, that our level of government now is 'just right', that the constitution has been stretched to just the amount that was intended, depending on which of the framers you poll, and that anything less is too little and anything more is too much.

No proof. Just nonsense I have debunked. No, because todays level of government is not constitutional, therefore, according to the law, you cannot say it is 'just right.' That is the proof your argument holds no weight.

It's all relative and as such, not really useful. In reality the government either does or doesn't exist, does or does not have the powers, the constitution does or does not limit it, and the government is either stable in its scope of power, progressing or retracting.

No, because, once again, the constitution is a guideline for government. The people have to hold government accountable to the laws in that guideline to truly limit government, since no document alone will prevent the rise of tyrannical governments.

The federal government didn't exist, the constitution framed it, its ratification brought it into power and in many ways vested it with powers beyond that exercised by the crown, just not as innovative.

So what if it created the federal government. The fact is, it was still given three branches, which are checks and balances via the system of seperation of powers, since each of the three branches have the authority to act on their own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, etc. So whether you like it or not, that is not a leap to tyranny nor is it more centralized than the British government. The only problem is that the people do not use the system (constitution) to hold the government accountable when it breaks it's own laws, etc. This then breeds dirty politicians. The constitution is dependent on the people the U.S. in order to work.

It is nothing more than a power grab, plain and simple. Whether or not you or I think it was reasonable then, now, or somewhere along the line, or needs even more power, isn't the issue.

Once again, just more opinionated nonsense. It was not a power grab. If it were a power grab, there would not be three main branches of the federal government, but just one governmental body, etc.

If the constitution says they can't, and they do it anyway, then by definition it doesn't limit their power.

I never said the constitution alone limits the governments power. I said that it needs the public to use the constitutional system to keep government in check and then it will limit their power.

If it limited their power, it wouldn't have happened.

You're wrong because, once again, once a government as a whole becomes tyrannical, they often have a common agenda, therefore there is no force restraining them. There is no force restraining them because the people do not use the system to hold them accountable.

In reality it is a piece of paper, constructed upon and ignored at will, and so largely irrelevant except as an historical example of what was considered an acceptable scope of government power at the time, and what its proponents had to sacrifice to get it through. As such it's no more limiting or powerful than any other piece of legislation, and the 'limitations', some of which by our standards were completely ignored almost right off the bat, are merely the record of what the most powerful special interests of the time, including the people, simply wouldn't tolerate at any level. But what the people will or will not tolerate is not fixed, nor is what they desire, what they think is acceptable.

The constitution was and still is being ignored because, once again, the people have failed to use the system that was given to them to keep them in check. The fact is, you're putting the blame on the constitution rather than the people.

[bi0hazurd]

lol obama is probably not a mac truck he transforms into a soda machine, or a urinal.

[CDB]

Wrong. Do not try to twist things again just because you are wrong. No one said the argument was about whether the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, but my answer to your rebuttal about the constitution representing a "much stronger central government" was supposed to differentiate between a stronger government and a centralized, out of control bureaucracy with no checks and balances.

Which is one, BS, and two, not what you said. You said the constitution was necessary because the prior situation was intolerable or not workable for some reason. Once more, a matter of opinion. As is your differentiation between a centralized bureacracy and what you think is an appropriate level of centralized government. Your bureacracy is someone else's 'just right' level of government, my 'just right' is someone else's anarchy, my 'just right' to an anarchist is their centralized bureacracy. Relativity works in physics, not here. By any objective measure the constitution created and vastly increased the powers of the central government. You have not refuted a single thing I have said, you've merely offerred post hoc justifications based on normative judgements about why the government formed by the ratification of the constitution was good and what we have now is bad.

As you can see, you basically said the constitution was responsible for todays centralization of power and that it destroyed "freedom and liberty." So what I said about it making a stronger central government, but not a centralized power with no checks and balances does apply. By the way, freedom and liberty is pretty much the same thing.

And it is. We don't have freedom of speech because of the first ammendement, we have freedom of speech because the majority of people want it so it's allowed to continue. Should that change, the first ammendment will be turned into a new mad libs. Under both conservative and liberal administrations there have been attacks on the first ammendment. And so long as the enemies of speech present a constitutionally based argument for limiting speech, which they can, and so long as popular opinion is with them, freedom of speech will be thrown in the waste bin of history.

Arguable on the last regarding freedom and liberty. In a political sense liberty requires you respect the equal rights of others, so to a certain extent your 'freedom' in an absolute sense is cutrailed. Many people take freedom as an absolute, when as a practical/political matter it isn't. In other words, some people say that if you can't kill someone, you are not free. Technically true, practically BS.

Again, the orginal argument was over 1.how the constitution is responsible for todays centralization of power and 2. what it was meant to do, not what the constitution did and didn't do, because that is too broad of a statement, given the specific subject that we have been discussing.

And I have provided not only argument but links to others who have researched the issue and made the same claim. The constitution provided the basis for the central government to come into existence, nor did it serve to limit that government. Construction and neglect have allowed that central government to expand beyond all limits and expectations.

[quote]Once again, making unfounded claims. I will ask you again, if the U.S. Constitution lead to todays centralization of power, as you have said many times, then through what mechanisms did this occur? Which constitutional mechanisms were responsible? Do not just make claims without saying how and listing the mechanisms involved.

This is rich. You have provided nothing, cited nothing, now I have to provide and cite for you? The mechanisms have been clearly laid out: construction and neglect. Specific methods of construction have also been mentioned, the two most popular are the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Both also previously mentioned.

The constitution was and still is being ignored because, once again, the people have failed to use the system that was given to them to keep them in check. The fact is, you're putting the blame on the constitution rather than the people.

If the blame belongs on the people and it is their responsibility to limit the government, then the only function of a written constitution is to codify the government's power and serve as an excuse/justification for each power grab. And if the people don't want a limited government the constitution serves no end whatsoever because it can simply be ignored. By laying out the supposed limits of government it presupposes a governmental form and scope that will always please the people, frozen in time. But people change. Should they want more government, nothing need be done, because without their will the constitution doesn't limit the government on its own. However should they want less, the government can always use the constitution to justify its current powers and any others it wants to grab via construction. So in that respect it protects the states existence, not the people or their rights.

With all your equivocation these facts remain:

1) The constitution provided for the creation of a central government which previously didn't exist, which had explicit powers which previously hadn't even been implicit or assumed except by the King.

2) The constitution did not limit the expansion of government. Neither did the people. And the constitution has served via construction as the justification for many expansions of the government's powers. Interstate commerce has been used to justify controls on agriculture, drugs, education, etc.

3) The intent of the framers of the constitution was a more powerful central government. That they may not have wanted one as powerful as our current central government is unprovable and irrelevant anyway. Some likely didn't, some did. The relevant point is that the constitution was an attempt to assert legal power, not to limit it. If they had truly wanted to limit the central government the obvious choice is to not establish one.

4) If your argument that the constitution didn't provide for the expansion of the central government is correct, then it also did not and could not limit the government except to the extent that popular will backed those limitations.

5) If the popular will is in fact what limits the government, which isn't something I disagree with, then there should be no need for a constitution. To expand its powers the goverment need merely ignore it or construct upon it in response to the people. To limit the government's powers the people need not appeal to any document but merely assert themselves via popular demonstrations. In fact a document laying out the scope of government would become a hinderance because it would freeze forever in time the popular will of one group of people, nothing more, and provide some measure of official justification for governmental powers even if the people were against such powers.

So that leaves us still where my claims end; the constitution, any constitution, is a power grab. Limitations on government codified in the constitution are nothing but the momentary whims of the public and don't actually serve to limit the overall growth of the government so long as the people are willing to ignore them en masse. But, the document itself does serve as an official codification of power which both legitimizes the existence and ever increasing scope of the central government's powers.

[Bass Master]

Which is one, BS, and two, not what you said. You said the constitution was necessary because the prior situation was intolerable or not workable for some reason.

Yes, I did say that the constitution providing a stronger form of government was a good idea, but the arguement wasn't about that. There is a difference between adding your opinion into an arguement and then going completely off topic. Also, even though I added in that opinion, it was still on topic because you were saying the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was basically better, when, in reality, in was a complete failure. So, what you say is irrelevant.

Once more, a matter of opinion. As is your differentiation between a centralized bureacracy and what you think is an appropriate level of centralized government.

Wrong. Not a matter of opinion. I was arguing what the constitution, not I, allows as an appropriate level of government. The fact is, the constitution does not allow todays level of centralized government. That isn't my opinion.

Your bureacracy is someone else's 'just right' level of government, my 'just right' is someone else's anarchy, my 'just right' to an anarchist is their centralized bureacracy.

Yes, bureacracy may be someone else's perfect level of government, but it's not the constitutional level of government. Big difference.

By any objective measure the constitution created and vastly increased the powers of the central government.

Wrong. The federal government was still split up into three branches where each branch can act on it's own and even regulate other branches. This is not the kind of "centralization of power" that you speak of. Once again, the entire federal government is not compressed into one governmental body.

You have not refuted a single thing I have said, you've merely offerred post hoc justifications based on normative judgements about why the government formed by the ratification of the constitution was good and what we have now is bad.

I have refuted every single nonsensical word that has been uttered from your mouth. You continue to make your giant, unfounded claims without any real historical facts to back them up. For example, you continue to say the constitution led to tyranny and todays big government when you have not stated the constitutional mechanisms which were supposedly responsible for this and continue to ramble on about theoretical, conspiracy jibberish of how there was some pact between the framers of the constitution where they wanted todays nanny state and that it was a "power grab", especially since no constitutional mechanisms directly allow this.

And it is. We don't have freedom of speech because of the first ammendement, we have freedom of speech because the majority of people want it so it's allowed to continue.

No, it isn't. Well, obviously and ultimately we have freedom of speech because that is what people naturally want, but the 1st amendment, for example, was established to ensure this, since government, when they become tyrannical and out of control, will find any legal loophole they can to break a certain law and if it is not written down in plain words on paper, it is much easier to break.

Should that change, the first ammendment will be turned into a new mad libs. Under both conservative and liberal administrations there have been attacks on the first ammendment. And so long as the enemies of speech present a constitutionally based argument for limiting speech, which they can, and so long as popular opinion is with them, freedom of speech will be thrown in the waste bin of history.

Yes. And there have been attacks on the constitution ever since it was written and put into law, because, once again, governments nature is to grow bigger, become tyrannical, and grab power. If and when they do completely do away with the first or second amendment and are successful at doing so, it won't be because the constitution allowed it. It will be because the people allowed it because, according to the constitution, it is essential to have a watchful and alert public who will hold the government accountable to the constitution. On the other hand, if people are watchful and alert and hold the government accountable, then freedom of speech will not be done away with in that sense - but I don't have much faith in the majority of Americans doing this.

Arguable on the last regarding freedom and liberty. In a political sense liberty requires you respect the equal rights of others, so to a certain extent your 'freedom' in an absolute sense is cutrailed. Many people take freedom as an absolute, when as a practical/political matter it isn't. In other words, some people say that if you can't kill someone, you are not free. Technically true, practically BS.

No, that's like saying water being h20 is technically true, but is BS.

And I have provided not only argument but links to others who have researched the issue and made the same claim.

No, you did not argue the facts. You cited a bit of theoretical jibberish via a few links to a few opinionated individuals who are giving their opinions on what the constitution was written for, etc.

The constitution provided the basis for the central government to come into existence, nor did it serve to limit that government. Construction and neglect have allowed that central government to expand beyond all limits and expectations.

Wrong. Yes, the constitution did usher in a central government that was previously nonexistent, but whether you think that is a bad or good thing is a matter of opinion. The fact is, the constitution itself did limit the power of government by breaking it up into three main branches that can act on their own and even regulate the other branches, but, once again, when a government as a whole becomes tyrannical, then no constitutional mechanisms can restrain it because that government is looking to break all of those laws; there is no opposing force to restrain it by using those constitutional laws. It seems like this simple fact just keeps falling into deaf ears.

This is rich. You have provided nothing, cited nothing, now I have to provide and cite for you?

This either shows me that you cannot read, or are not reading my posts at all because I have provided examples. Let me quote myself with just one example:

The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

Indeed, this is rich.

The mechanisms have been clearly laid out: construction and neglect.

"Construction and neglect." Wrong again. A law that is put into power never physically changes unless that government modifies that law through various legal actions/mechanisms. If the latter doesn't happen, then that law cannot construct or neglect itself. Only the current government that is safeguarding that law can neglect it or break it, therefore what you said is officially moot. Furthermore, you have still not answered my question. "Construction and neglect" does not tell me what constitutional mechanisms directly allowed todays overgrown, centralized form of government. Here, let me talk to you on a 5th grader level: in other words, what laws or amendments directly allowed todays overgrown, centralization of government?

Specific methods of construction have also been mentioned, the two most popular are the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Both also previously mentioned.

The general welfare clause is not responsible for todays centralization of government. Yes, congress can collect taxes, etc., but ONLY within reason of LAW, which is only to the maximum constitutional limit of allowance, etc.

For example, Article 1, section 8, clause 1 states: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

We know that this can only be done within reason of constitutional law because the constitution also states that deficit spending is unconstitutional/unlawful and that only gold and silver can be legal tender. So, yes, congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay debts, BUT, if they kept within the realms of what size of government the constitution allows for, congress would not be taxing us like they are now, especially if we still had sound money to limit government. So, once again, wrong. You have to compare article with article, etc. You cannot just use one or two parts of the constitution. So, once again, you have not produced any constitutional mechanisms that allowed todays centralization of power. I am still waiting. Funny how you also forgot "Taxation without representation." Congress is taxing future generations. Are you going to say that this is constitutional too? Please, don't even make me laugh. In fact, one of the BIGGEST mechanisms that has allowed for todays centralization of power is for the government to tax future generations, which is completely unconstitutional, therefore this unequivocally proves that the constitution itself did not allow for todays centralization of power. The government breaking its laws did.

And as for the Commerce Clause, that also is not responsible for todays centralization of power because this too, like every law outlined in the constitution, has to be in compliance with other laws that are outlined in the constitution and have to bee made within reason of constitutional law. The Commerce Clause is also amplified by the Necessary and Proper clause, which states that this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by 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." Once again. What is the government legally bound to? The constitution, therefore this can only be used within reason of constitutional law. In other words, even though the Commerce Clause is abused today, it is not allowed to be used in that way according to the constitution. Furthermore, in the end part of that clause, it says: "...or in any Department or Officer thereof...".
Are all of the departments we have today constitutional? No. The constitution does not allow the federal government to get involved in education (Dept. of Education) nor does it allow the DMV, so, if the government actually followed the constitution, this would apply to them and the Commerce Clause would not be abused.