Replies

Also, how could the Federal government have been created by the people when the state delegates did not meet in Philadelphia with the intention of creating a national government, but merely to work on the Articles of Confederation.

Don't expect an answer from Walt: when you mention the ratification process, he tends to run like a turpentined cat. (Anytime you want to have fun, just ask him to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called 'perpetual union' formed under the Articles, or the 'federal-judge-approved-yet-blatantly-unconstitutional' Alien and Sedition Acts... ;>)

In the end, there are only a limited number of ways in which to interpret Walt’s argument:

* The States willingly and knowingly made irrevocable and permanent unwritten commitments to the new (and admittedly ‘experimental’) union when they ratified the Constitution. Or;

* The States unwillingly or unknowingly made irrevocable and permanent unwritten commitments to the new (and admittedly ‘experimental’) union when they ratified the Constitution, If so;

* Then the Founders were worse than the worst sort of used car salesmen, and bamboozled the people of the individual States into ratifying a new federal government with “almost unlimited” power. Or;

* Neither the Founders nor the people of the States intended to create an ‘imperial judiciary,’ but once the Supreme Court declared that it's word was law, there was absolutely nothing anyone could do about it, despite anything the written Constitution might say to the contrary.

Anyway you look at it, his argument is asinine. As the colonists noted in 1775:

By one [British] statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? ... We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us.

The Founders and the people of the several States would never have agreed to such a provision in the new Constitution: they had just fought a war to escape such “despotism.” Nevertheless, that is exactly what Walt argues, when he insists that the Constitution permits a nearly-limitless expansion of the ‘implied powers’ doctrine by an activist judiciary, to create a federal government of “almost unlimited” power. And when we ask, “What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a [federal] power?” – he responds with insults.

I would not be surprised to see, during my lifetime, the federal government declare that civilian ownership of firearms is unlawful, or to see the high court announce that the death penalty is unconstitutional. This, despite the fact that the Constitution declares that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and despite the fact that the constitution as ratified specifically referred to capital punishment. If (or when) the federal government takes such action, some ‘Conservatives’ will no doubt just put on their ‘Big Government’ kneepads and pucker up...

You're right, he is fun to play with. It was either WP or one of his cohorts that told me that, because the word "permanent" appears in the preamble of the A of C, that was proof that secession is illegal.

Ah, you are wise in the ways of the Constitution, Grasshopper, but you must be lying as am I.

WP even lies when he tries to insult me. Follow the "reply to" thread and work backwards, and you'll see that when he originally started this lying stuff, he said either I'm lying or I didn't retain my lessons in school very well. With his most recent reply, though, he says he wasn't implying but rather stating flat out that I was lying. He is so intellectually dishonest that its almost funny.

If so;
* Then the Founders were worse than the worst sort of used car salesmen,..........

Partially true. Madison, Hamilton, Washington and others clearly went to Philadelphia with the intent to 'start over' if I can use that phrase. They realized that the independence so hard won as a nation only a few years eariler was in jeopardy under the weak Articles. They knew we needed a more 'perfect' and powerful Union if any of the states were to remain independent. In fact, Washington agreed to assume the Presidency of the convention only under the condition that a new form of government would result. They also understood that if they stated their intent before hand, the petty demogogs in the states would have sabatoged the convention. They did work in secrecy through the summer of 1787 and produced as near a perfect document as has ever been developed by man.

I guess if you consider Lincoln a tyrant, calling calling Washington a 'used car salesmen' is not all that bad. History simply does not agree with you