I've read the Constitution and a good deal of the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers, as well as much of the private papers of Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others.
Nowhere in the Constitution, is anything mentioned about any of thsese historical papers. My point was and still is, the US Constitution, is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its legislative process for making law. There is no other historical papers that have any direct bearing, or association, on what the Constitution specifically states. The Constitution remains, a stand alone governing document, from which all subsequent written law is based on. If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have their full understanding and interpretation of the Constitution, they should have spelled out precisely what they meant the document to mean.
I support much of the original intentions of the what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Constitution, however, that doesn't make these so-called, associated documents, relevent to the current state of affairs.
Well, let's put it this way: For the first ~150 years this country existed, after the end of the Revolutionary War, federal government spending never exceed about 5% of the national income, during peacetime. (And it was usually more like 3-4%.) Now, federal government spending is 25% of national income.
In all that time, there have been NO amendments that authorized the federal government to spend major money on new areas (like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, Agriculture, Energy, etc. etc. etc.). So the federal government has done ALL these things outside The Law. And The Sheeple have stood by all let the federal government do all those illegal things (and, of course, tax The Sheeple to pay for them...though the Republicans like to run deficits to force The Sheeple's CHILDREN to pay for things).
Yeah, I'd say the federal government is corrupt. And the people are fools and idiots...or they simply don't give a #@$% about their freedom. (I see a lot of that on "Free" Republic.)
In fact, look at what we're doing on THIS board...debating whether or not the federal government should spend a lot of our tax money doing something it clearly is NOT authorized to do; meanwhile, I seriously doubt whether any of the people on this board wrote a letter to G.W. Bush telling him he is a corrupt tyrant, for signing away our free speech (on CFR). (I didn't do that because I'm sure he already knows what *I* think of him...as I made it very clear before the election.)
Nowhere in the Constitution, is anything mentioned about any of thsese historical papers. My point was and still is, the US Constitution, is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its legislative process for making law.
Your "point" is ludicrous. And you've already demonstrated it with your "interpretation" of the "commerce clause." You take "regulate" to include "completely bringing to a halt." But that's as ridiculous as if the Constitution said, "The federal government should help The People be gay"...and you now interpret that to mean that the federal government should encourage homosexuality! "Gay" did NOT mean "homosexual" back when the Constitution was written, and "regulate commerce...among the several states" did NOT mean, "prohibit the travel of certain goods between states"! (Let alone the even MORE ludicrous, "Ban anything everywhere that MIGHT at some time cross a state line!")
Once again, read an American history book. Read why the Founding Fathers (the signers of the Constitution) WROTE the Constitution. One of the huge reasons was to INCREASE the unimpeded flow of goods between states! That was a DEFECT in the Articles of Confederation--that states could pass laws restricting trade with other states--that the Constitution was meant to remedy!
If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have their full understanding and interpretation of the Constitution, they should have spelled out precisely what they meant the document to mean.
I'm an engineer. We engineers have a saying, "You can never make something idiot-proof. Idiots are too clever!" You wish that the Founding Fathers would have "idiot-proofed" the Constitution. But they never expected The People to be so totally devoid of knowledge of history and civics, that The People would ever LET elected officials butcher the "commerce" and "general welfare" clauses the way they are currently being butchered! (And the way in which YOU approve!) As Franklin said, when asked about the type of new government, "A Republic, ma'am. If you can keep it." (May not be an exact quote.)
I support much of the original intentions of the what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Constitution, however, that doesn't make these so-called, associated documents, relevent to the current state of affairs.
Our freedoms exist only to the extent that We, The People care to argue/agitate/revolt for them. When we have citizens who accept the absolute BS that federal officials feed them about the Constitution, we lose our freedoms. Exactly as we've lost the freedom to keep 25% of our income free from federal government control.
I obviously can't--and wouldn't bother to, even if I could--force you to pick up a history book, and read about why the commerce clause was put into the Constitution, to correct the perceived flaw in the Articles of Confederation. If you don't care about the federal government not following the intent of the Constitution...well, it's your (and my, unfortunately!) loss.
Gotta get to bed. (The first 2 hours of my work tomorrow are to pay unconstitutional money to the federal government...:-( )