Actually, the complaints here seem all to be about the extent of the government not the governmet itself. That means its not hopeless, anyway. For example, the arguments over whether public or private is better seems not to be an argument over the need for anything such as roads, railways, airports, etc., just how they shall be managed.
Anyway, I could start by pointing out that, like Crab Tree (see #26), that under the original Constitution the States could do whatever they wanted to make life miserable for freedom lovers. The only limitation was listed in Article IV (now that would be a great one to get into -- just what is a "republican form of government"?).
Or I could point out that the Founders' intent is useless if constitutional powers are "enumerated" -- so which is it? Do we take the Commerce Clause for its words or Madison's intent? Yes, it's much abused, but I don't hear any complaints here that it gives no such powers to the general government to regulate commerce (hee,hee... now: whatz that mean? Is manufacture for sale outside one state interstate commerce? Scotus didn't think so for quite some time...)
Or we could talk about how the 14th amendment, supposedly needed to force State hommage to the Bill of Rights has also turned all Federal law into State law...
I could agree with Sobran that the people get the government they want: that's called a democracy. In the 19th Century, that meant that property owners voted laws to their benefit. In the 20th Century that means welfare recipients vote to their benefit... Which is worse?
Oh, there's so much to do! But I won't get into it. No time. Thanks for the flag, though.
And what (and who) made them change their mind? FDR and his court packing bill were a sorry episode in the history of executive power abuses. The fact that this is what it took to get this foolishness made law should give Congress pause to wield the power it grants. They, and we seem oblivious.
By the way, this is a fine point. I like Scalia's concept, which is to go with its words. He doesn't care what they "intended", because that is too subjective. What were the words understood to mean when they wrote them. If we all handled it this way, we could, through legislation and amendment, better secure the rights that are in doubt, and better empower the government where desired, and limit it as well, or whatever. In short, the Founders did their work. We must do ours.
Seems to me that the Property owners have more right to have the government they want because they were not only getting the reward of the government but also supporting (morally and financially) the government. On the other hand, welfare recipients are simply a drag on the government which use resources but supply no support.