I'm not an absolutist and I don't agree with such a set of values and beliefs. I am a traditionalist and a mainstream conservative, who supports the Constitution as the basis for our freedom and liberty and the American legal and judicial system. Limiting government. Placing lawyer jargon aside, it is important to understand, the Federalist Papers aren't part of the Constitution and have no relevency whatsoever, in the goverance of our Republic. While I strongly support a national government that has a reduced scope of power and influence, one that is smaller and less intrusive into the lives of its people, I'm no anti-govt type, who believes America is better off with chaos and anarchy.
I am a traditionalist and a mainstream conservative, who supports the Constitution as the basis for our freedom and liberty and the American legal and judicial system.I wasn't making an absolutist or theoretical question. I was just lumping the CSA in with the all the other travesties of modern commerce clause legal gimmicry. There is a looong history when we did not abuse the Constitution this way, and most conservatives would prefer to move our government back is scale and scope to this earlier period. moreover, the Federalist Papers do explain what the Founders meant, and so they have a lot to say about how the Repulic is run, unless you want the Constitution to be a living document, with meanings that change over time. The Constitution isn't just the "basis," it is the benchmark and standard and what should be - was meant to be - a hard limit on federal government. A LOT of the "American legal and judicial system" has overgrown the bounds of the Constitution, and should be lopped off. Let's start with everything that has a bogus foundation in the commerce clause.