"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." --James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45
LOL, which includes the power to conduct warantless searches as long as they are "reasonable"...
It is unlikely that we would disagree with each other that the things you listed are NOT Constitutional. They are unconstitutional on a couple of grounds, first that we never granted the federal gonernment that authority and second that the founders found many on the things so fundamental that they specifically forbid them in our Constitution.
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. Considering that the Federalist point of view prevailed, I would tend to believe that your information is correct.
They are still useful documents along with the anti-Federalist papers, and several other books containing writings of the time to understand what was ment and why certain things were added/deleted from the proposed Constitution.
If I had been around at the time I would have probably have taken the anti-Federalist position. However, the Federalist position did prevail.
Your references to what congress considers "interstate commerce" are exactly my point with reference to the limited powers of the Federal government. 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 problems that we have with our Federal Government operating outside its legal boundries are our fault. We have failed to demmand that our elected officials do their job and uphold the Constitution.
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.
I do respect your views, and enjoyed the discussion, but it is unlikely that we would ever agree on this.
James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45 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?