[ClearCase_guy]

By all means get a copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Those folks really wanted limited government and they saw clearly that the proposed Constitution could lead to a large, powerful, intrusive federal government. We only got the Bill of Rights because the Anti-Federalists pushed for it. Think what this country would be without the 1st or 2nd Amendments (and the other 8).

We really do have structural problems in this country, and they go all the way back. I do love the Constitution, but it carried seeds of our destruction.

[rarestia]

I’m beginning to appreciate your way of thinking, and I will definitely get on board with it. Being a product of public schools, we were taught that the Constitution was a benevolent document, but as I’ve grown into an independent thinker, I’m beginning to understand the insidious nature of what our Federal government has become.

[Huck]

We only got the Bill of Rights because the Anti-Federalists pushed for it.

That's a good point. The radio talkers always credit our "brilliant Framers" for giving us a bill of rights. Really? Then why were they amendments? Because the draft that came out of convention did not have a bill of rights. The framers didn't want a bill of rights.

And it's not as if it was some sort of new fangled idea. Most if not all of the state constitutions contained a bill of rights. It was an intentional omission.

The political argument broke down like this:

Big government federalists: Wanted a strong, consolidated, centralized gubmint, supported the unamended Constitution.

Small gubmint antifederalists: Wanted a limited, central government, opposed the constitution.

Moderates: Wanted the promise of a bill of rights added in exchange for a yes vote.

So they promised a bill of rights to get their new government passed.