Your view of “intent” is apparently whatever you would like it to be, mainly filtered through the hagiography of the later Lincoln. In fact, it reminds me of the “intent” Douglas found in “emanations from penumbras” (That’s Griswold, so you don’t have to look it up).
Federalists like Marshall, Whigs like Clay, and followers of Clay such as Lincoln promoted a very different scheme of government from that of the Constitution. I suppose you have reason to love the leviathan police state. It sends checks in the mail; it prints money; it intervenes foolishly around the world; it is constantly intervening at home to “protect” us. If you actually read the Federalist Papers you might struggle to consider that the powers of your beloved Federal government were presented (correctly) as strictly limited to a handful of enumerated powers (That means specified in writing, in case you were wond4ering). The argument that was initially made against having a Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary because the sovereign states retained all of their powers except those enumerated. The Bill of Rights, from a drafting perspective, was a “belt and suspenders” exercise to ensure that the states and the their respective peoples retained all of their former rights, except those enumerated. The first eight Amendments reflect English and colonial experience with the Tudors and the Stuarts. If you look at the Petition of Right of 1628, for instance, you will see provision that gave rise to several of the protections contained in the Bill of Rights. Lincoln’s tyranny would have been rejected by every one of those commonly referred to as “Founders” and the people Madison correctly described as “Founders”.
achilles2000 from #276: "I suppose you have reason to love the leviathan police state.
It sends checks in the mail... "
I think these statements show us, beyond reasonable doubt, that our good FRiend achilles2000 is a complete idiot, utterly devoid of reading comprehension, or of IQ, totally dependent on his (lengthy) script of talking points, and incapable of making reasoned conversation outside of them.
IF achilles2000 had even a small brain, he'd know for certain that nobody here, and certainly no Founder ever advocated for a "Leviathan police state" such as we have today.
Our Founders, for all their manifest genius, could not imagine -- much less propose -- such a monstrosity.
achilles2000: "If you actually read the Federalist Papers you might struggle to consider that the powers of your beloved Federal government were presented (correctly) as strictly limited to a handful of enumerated powers..."
FRiend, it's insane to suppose that posters here have not read their Constitution, or such documents as the Federalist Papers which explain "original intent".
As far as I can tell, there's not a non-conservative on the thread, and so your words ring like blatherings from a lunatic.
Why do you do it?
To my knowledge, everybody here clearly understands that our Founders' original intent was to form "a more perfect Union" than Articles "perpetual union", a Union that might consume 2% of gross-national-product, as necessary for national defense, not the 20% or 30% as it does today.
But, seems to me, you achilles2000, have consistently argued against our Founders' original intent, and in favor of the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders, anti-Constitution, and eventually, pro-secessionists, pro-Confederates and pro-declaration of war on the United States.
So it appears that, like some Confederates of old: you wish to destroy the Constitution our Founders gave us, and return to something more like those old Articles.
I say: that's fine, believe & advocate what you wish.
But it's no excuse for making a complete idiot of yourself.
Suggest you go back and take another look at how those freedom-loving Founders treated those of their fellow citizens who disagreed with them on whether America should split with Britain.
The Tories were treated MUCH worse than rebels were during the War Between the States and its aftermath.
http://threerivershms.com/loyalistspersecution.htm
That's how the Founders themselves treated those who fought them in a civil war.