The Federalist papers are not law. They were propaganda intended to sell a carefully sabotaged Constitution to the public, a bait and switch.
It is unlikely that we would disagree with each other that the things you listed are NOT Constitutional.
No, everything I named is explicitly Constitutional and this was the very intent of the Founding Lawyers who, after all, were writing their future job descriptions.
I can not address your information about the shutting down of the news papers for the anti-Federalist views, that is the first time that I have heard of that.
Government school? Ah well, I suppose it was "neccesary and proper" or in the interests of the "general welfare".
. If we allow every word to be that elastic then we get Federal intrusion at every level. It is bizzar for the Senate to assume that they can treaty in areas where they have no authority to legislate. That is what it appeared to me that you were indicating that the Constitution was - elastic.
The words are intended to be elastic. The Founding Lawyers were smart enough to write an inelastic document but they didn't. They could have stated that troops could not be quartered without an home owner's consent PERIOD, but they didn't did they? They could have insisted on a right to a public jury trial in all cases whatsoever but no they reserved this only to cases deemed criminal by the government itself. This is why you do not receive a jury trial when you go up against the IRS.
After reading your homepage (not sure of it's official name here at the site) here at Freerepublic I am really suprised that we differ in views on this topic. Everything you stated I feel that I could also state as my position.
Weird, huh?
Look either the Constitution was designed to create the sort unlimited, unaccountable government we suffer from today OR it is powerless to prevent it.
Which is it?