No, not true. The constitution can only be used to keep government in check if there is a vocal and active opposition force within that government body to regulate itself according to the constitution, therefore, like I said earlier, if there is no "good" to fight "evil", then evil takes over and breaks it's own laws, etc. Every constitution needs good people in order to work. That would be like saying we don't need firemen to save people from burning buildings because we have fire trucks.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.
Yes, but that is the case with every constitution. If a government as a whole becomes corrupt and has a common agenda, then there is no oppositional force to regulate or hold that government accountable. The constitution is a guideline that decent people use to hold government accountable and regulate it. The only problem is, we don't have enough decent people in government anymore, therefore it is not working. No constitution can physically keep government in check because decent people are needed to use it, just like no house blueprint can physically build a house because it needs carpenters in order to do so. This doesn't mean the bluprint is useless though. Why? Because that blueprint can guide those carpenters in the right direction and show them what kind of house to build and how to build that house the way it says it needs to be built. Your notion that the failure of a constitution is due to it's own construction or it's own existence, rather than the failure of the people, is absurd.And if the people don't want a limited government the constitution serves no end whatsoever because it can simply be ignored.
No, because something that limits government to a certain level cannot legally allow government to grow beyond that level. The constitution does that, but, like I said earlier, the constitution, as with any constitution, needs an aware and educated public in order to work. Yes, people change, and if people want to add amendments to the constitution to make it better and more effective when it comes to safeguarding liberty, then they can do that. But people also become dumber and apathetic. Does this mean our laws should become tyrannical and apathetic to the wishes of those people? No. But those kind of laws are byproducts of apathetic, uncaring, greedy, corrupt politicians rather than a constitution.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.
Please do not call them facts. These are the opinions of some guy who read theoretical, conspiracy jibberish rather than actual history. No, let me revise that statement to my liking, since I have based my conclusions on facts, not nonsensical, opinionated jibberish:With all your equivocation these facts remain:
With all your equivocation, these facts remain:
Wrong. The constitution enumerated these powers to a central government that was split into three branches, not one governmental body with a "their say only" policy.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.
Wrong. The constitution itself legally restrains the expansion of government. The fact is, the constitution does not allow government to grow to todays level nor does it allow it to use paper money, which allows for this expansion, therefore you cannot say the constitution allows for the expansion of government beyond it's own natural constitutional limit when the two most used mechanisms for todays government expansion are unconstitutional: paper money/printing money and deficit spending.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.
Funny how you go from saying that the intent of the framers of the constitution was nothing more than a "power grab" to saying that it was a "more powerful central government." You are, once again, changing what you said. No one NEVER said that the intent of the framers of the constitution was to make a stronger central government. I said that in one of my earlier posts. This is a sure sign of someone who is obviously wrong on their "facts".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.
Opinion, not fact. The historical fact is that the constitution was meant to limit government while providing for a stronger central government that can do it's job, but have checks and balances and not grow beyond it's natural constitutional limitations. That is the fact and your opinion - or maybe I should say conspiracy jibberish - that it was an attemt to assert legal power or was a "power grab" is just that: an opinon.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.
No constitution itself can obviously limit government if no one puts it to use. I already talked about this above using the analogy about carpenters, not house bluprints, building homes. That's like saying some document could have stopped Hitler from doing what he did. No, the people could have by maybe using that document, but ultimately it is up to the people to stop him.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.
No, because 1. the constitution is a guideline and 2. even popular will needs a guideline to start from. Once again, you can't build a house without a house bluprint, even though you'd love to build one5) 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.
The government, to a very large degree, already HAS already been ignoring what people want. Doesn't work, obviously.To expand its powers the goverment need merely ignore it or construct upon it in response to the people.
"Popular demonstrations" are not as organized as written law. In order to limit governments power, popular demonstration/being politically active AND using a document to hold them accountable to, as a guideline, is needed. This is what the constitution requires.To limit the government's powers the people need not appeal to any document but merely assert themselves via popular demonstrations.
No, because many of the basic principles and rights that are outlined in the constitution are principles/rights that never grow old, no matter how much society changes. What, you think that society will evolve to a point where they will never want or need freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or to shoot a gun? Of course not.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.
And that's just that: a claim.So that leaves us still where my claims end; the constitution, any constitution, is a power grab.
I don't entirely disagree with the latter part of this statement, but, as I have already showed above, the constitution was written to limit government, to a large degree, but, in practice or reality, does not limit government completely or indefinitely because 1. the failure of the public and 2. the government as a whole, with a common agenda, becoming tyrannical. An alert, watchful and educated public is essential for freedom and our framers of the constitution said this when they talked about the constitution in relation to it working or not politically.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.
I have already debunked this nonsense and all you have done thus far is stick to your unfounded claims. The fact is, once again, the constittuion was written to and does limit government to a large degree, but, in reality, it has not been restraining the growth of government indefinitely because when a government, with a common agenda, becomes tyrannical, then there is no oppositional force to hold them accountable to the constitution. After all, Hitler broke many laws because the public would not hold him accountable. Laws don't enforce themselves, men do - otherwise we would not need the Police.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.