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.
Not quite right. Most conservatives 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,... Most conservatives don't believe we should return to the exact government which existed in the 1790`s. I, for one, don't believe that is the right approach at all. That simply wouldn't work in todays world. It's totally unrealistic.
Only absolutists, like those found in the Libertarian Party would enjoy such a country. Libertarian's support the dismantling of the current structure of both America's military armed forces and criminal justice system and they they would allow unlimited immigration and unrestricted trade. On top of that, libertarians would legalize prostitution and drugs. Only libertarian's support this form of government, where chaos and anarchy reign supreme.
Conservatives aren't anti-government and don't want to see America become a third world country either.
... 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.
I understand that the Founding Fathers speak through the Federalist Papers. My point was, the Federalist Papers aren't legal documents and therefore have no bearing on the actual wording of the Constitution. I don't like this term living document, but the Constitution was created with the ability for it to be ammended, from time to time. That in and of itself, indicates to a limited degree, that the Constitution is a document that changes over time.