[Loud Mime]

There are any number of things that COULD have happened, and we'll never know what might have happened.

I disagree. There are many things that might have happened, including incredible failures! Why do you overlook that point?

The states were starting to develop into factions and finances were falling apart in the colonies. Unless an authority took control of the mess, the union was doomed.

Actually, there is more probability in the union falling apart than there was in the anti-federalist arguments saving the union. To argue the "strengths" of an unproven and untried system of government(especially one that was weaker than the federal proposal) over a system that has given us the United States seems risible. By removing its strength, it could be weak enough to fail.

Huck, your passion is noted, also your stubborn nature. You lost --- over 200 years ago. The system was good; it's the management that screwed it up. The same could happen with ANY government, even the alleged one you support that never came to be.

and.....easy on the ad hominems, guys. This argument was settled long ago.

[Huck]

There are many things that might have happened, including incredible failures! Why do you overlook that point?

I don't overlook it. If a car crashes into the wall in lap 30 of the big race, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have crashed into the wall in some later lap. BUT, the fact that it might have hit the wall in a later lap doesn't change the fact that it DID hit the wall in lap 30.

The states were starting to develop into factions and finances were falling apart in the colonies. Unless an authority took control of the mess, the union was doomed.

Which is what they were supposedly meeting to address. They were supposed to add a few specific powers to the Articles of Confederation---power to regulate trade between the states, power to collect taxes and pay off war debts.

But the nationalists already knew what they wanted. And they seized the opportunity. That's why Patrick Henry refused to participate and said he "Smelt a rat." They had no intention of strengthening the Articles.

Actually, there is more probability in the union falling apart than there was in the anti-federalist arguments saving the union.

What's the ultimate goal? Union, or liberty? The Union wasn't the highest priority. They all believed the Union was necessary, but not as an end in itself. The thought was that the union was necessary for their security. The end goal is supposed to be LIBERTY. If you have UNION without liberty, that's still a failure.

[Huck]

The system was good; it's the management that screwed it up.

If the lion cage won't hold the lions, you don't blame the lions for behaving like lions. You blame the cage for not holding them. Especially when the holes in the cage are clear and obvious.

[Huck]

Huck, your passion is noted, also your stubborn nature. You lost --- over 200 years ago.

The questions remain relevant. Most conservatives believe, as you do, that the Constitution is fine, that the only problem is that no one follows it in the way you think it ought to be followed. If only they'd interpret it the way you believe it is supposed to be interpreted, it would work great.

But what if you are wrong? What if what you are asking for is not possible? The only thing that matters in the end is what the document actually says, and how the actors under its power apply it. Intent means nothing. And under the Constitution, no one mode of interpretation carries more legal weight than another.

The convention was held in secret. The notes on the Convention didn't even come out until after ratification. The people, when they ratified the Constitution, had only the document itself to go by. They didn't have any clear idea of intent.

And the framers didn't all intend the same thing. Hamilton intended to strengthen the national government and weaken the states as much as possible. Madison intended to thread the needle. Others intended to make the best of a bad situation (they didn't like the Constitution, but tried to make it as good as they good.)

In short, there was no uniform "intent." Then you go and look at how the Nationalists(Federalists) governed---judicial review, implied powers, occasional unconstitutional acts (Louisiana purchase) and you see that your argument is tilting at windmills. It's longing for a time that never was.

[Huck]

You lost --- over 200 years ago.

One last point, my FRiend. The cause of liberty is a never-ending cause. It isn't lost for good. The Constitution didn't settle the question. Obviously not. And so it goes on.