Replies

That in no way seems a conservative trait.

Well, that depends on your definition of "conservative". I always thought that modern conservatives wanted, first and foremost, to restore the constitution. That would shut down all sorts of social spending and control exerted by the Federal government. This would come from strict enforcement of the Bill of Rights, specifically the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth forbids the Feds from doing anything not specifically listed in Article 1/Section 8 or added by amendment. That does more than say no Federal input to welfare, education, SS, and so on. It also means no Federal control of drugs. Just like it once meant no Federal control of alcohol without a specific amendment to change the list.

So you see, the Libertarians are more conservative than you on this issue.

Of course, Article V provides for the further application of balanced, constitutional government to new issues. (This, rather than to exclude the national addressing of those issues by a philosophy of the conservatism of the status quo, or a 'liberal' philosophy of demanding that all additional issues are to be left up to personal desires and private interests.)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This does not preclude the people, continuing to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of our Liberty, from more specifically addressing national roles for handling certain subjects. In fact, the powers reserved by the people may at any time be further proscribed to methods of government, by Amendment. That is a very original intent of constitution.

For another of many instances, there is a portion of FR dedicated to the astronomy picture of the day. Some of these are by means of NASA or the JPL. I see no provision for these (or for setting food and drug standards) in the Constitution, though I do see a very proper role for federal government there, as do most conservatives.

You seem blindfolded to the fact that we have elected representatives that have created more laws than existed exclusively in the Constitution.
The Constitution is the foundation and we have built a house of law on that foundation.

Just because you don't prefer to follow the rule of law, there is no reason for us to burn down the whole house of law just for the a minuscule minority view.

You don't understand then the reasoning of the Congress as to why they DON'T add a ton of amendments to the Constitution.
On their own website, the Congress says we re-interpret the Constitution for modern times because if they added a ton of amendments, you would end up with a worthless Constitution buried in paper that would have lost it's Historic significance as our foundation.

Rather than make the Constitution insignificant through endless amendments, they re-interpret with the courts being the last word most often as to what is acceptable.

You are saying you prefer the concept of 4,500 amendments to the constitution, well, go for it and get that passed if that is the preference. You most certainly will never remove restrictions of some needed kind in a population where the freedoms of many individuals are at stake and not just your.

If you want nearly no laws, go move to an island and declare yourself the Grand-Poo-Ba!