A Limited Government? (1 Viewer)

[jet57]

the mere existence of the Constitution says you are wrong.... it is, after all, a document that does nothing but limit government... that's it's only function.

So, use the mere constitution to prove that I am wrong. Cite from The Constitution to show where I'm wrong.

 

[Thrilla]

So, use the mere constitution to prove that I am wrong. Cite from The Constitution to show where I'm wrong.

what didn't you understand about the very existence of it shows you are wrong?...
it's existence is a limit on government...it's very simple to understand.
if government has limits put on it... what do we call that?... I would call it a limited government, personally.... how about you?


why haven't you answered my question yet?

is our government limited or unlimited?

 

[Aberration]

So, use the mere constitution to prove that I am wrong. Cite from The Constitution to show where I'm wrong.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[jet57]

what didn't you understand about the very existence of it shows you are wrong?...
it's existence is a limit on government...it's very simple to understand.
if government has limits put on it... what do we call that?... I would call it a limited government, personally.... how about you?


why haven't you answered my question yet?

is our government limited or unlimited?

The commerce clause and the elastic clause says that you are wrong.

 

[jet57]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"The People" are the government. As we have seen through the amendment process adn both elastic and commerce clauses the rights and powers of the federal government are determined by need.

The point is: the "limited goverment" argument by the right-wing is wholey wrong.

 

[Thrilla]

The commerce clause and the elastic clause says that you are wrong.

Neither the Commerce clause nor the Necessary and Proper clause formulate an unlimited government... sorry.

both deal with existing and limited powers. ( there's that words again.. limited)

 

[Thrilla]

"The People" are the government. As we have seen through the amendment process adn both elastic and commerce clauses the rights and powers of the federal government are determined by need.

The point is: the "limited goverment" argument by the right-wing is wholey wrong.

if the people determine a need to , for example, suspend the right to trial by jury... can the government do so?

if the people determine a need to suspend the right for commercial entities to advertise.. can the government do so?


the very concept of a limited government is a left wing ideal (provided left-wing = liberal)
your opposition to the concept of a limited government necessarily places you firmly into the realm of Authoritarianism ... which is diametrically opposed to Liberalism.

one should not use the ignorant version of political science to denote what ideologies hold what ideals.
US Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, greens, etc etc etc.. all hold the concept of a limited government to be correct and proper... there are , however, disagreements as to which limits are to be prioritized among the different factions...but none disavow the rightful concept and implementation of a limited government.


you position of the argument for limited government being wholly wrong is absurd, illogical, and factually incorrect.... the trifecta of wrongheadedness, as it were.

 

[Thrilla]

Jet... you have not answered the question yet.
is the government limited or unlimited?

it's a simple one word answer... limited.... or.... unlimited.

what's it gonna be?.. stop dodging the question and answer it truthfully.

 

[Aberration]

"The People" are the government. As we have seen through the amendment process adn both elastic and commerce clauses the rights and powers of the federal government are determined by need.

The point is: the "limited goverment" argument by the right-wing is wholey wrong.

No they are not. The people are just that, the people. The government is the United States and the States.

So your point is wrong as it stand upon a false premise.

 

[Republic Now!]

I'm not wrong about The Federalist Papers in any way. The only thing that matters is what came out of the final draft of the US Constitution, and that final draft; for the reasons I've stated, show that you are wrong. Marbury vs Madison only deliniated the separations of power which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You must use the final draft; up to and including, the commerce clause, the elastic clause, the amendment process and The Declaration of Independence: which should declare such limits outright, but do not appear to source your argument.

So, I'm afraid that what you really need is an amendment that places limits on the federal government; but, by design, and through a very very experienced and well thought out historical process, the US government - and the people who make it up have lots of room with which to live. So, you're wrong.

It sounds like what you're looking for changed entirely from when you said:

often see the argument advanced by conservatives that the framers wanted and designed a limited government, however the founding documents say nothing of a limited government, nor is there any reference to that in The Federalist Papers that I can find.

So, I’d like to see conservatives source this argument; The Heritage Foundation advances an argument yet they do not show such limitations, nor do they source them.

So I ask the conservatives; where do you source this argument and what citations can you offer?

 

[American]

What is clear is that such restrictions did not make into the final draft. The amdendment process and the commerce and elastic causes are what make my point. It's fine to quote projections and rhetoric; which, when we break it down, is what the federalist papers were. You can argue from them all you like, however our constitution tells what what is here; not what was proposed.

Are you going to **** up another thread with your inane premises regardless the limitless powers of the federal government?

 

[American]

So, use the mere constitution to prove that I am wrong. Cite from The Constitution to show where I'm wrong.

The same nonsense you used before, and you were total facestomped and destroyed during the debate.

 

[zstep18]

It depends on what someone means by "limited government". For example, Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans wanted to limit the Judicial Branch as much as possible, and instead wanted rule to be done by unchecked majority. John Adams and the Federalists, on the other hand, feared unchecked majority rule and wanted the Judicial Branch to have a stronger role in government. The platform of the Federalist Party was built on the idea of a strong federal government. But, even though the Founding Fathers wanted a "limited government", they themselves did things which contradicted their limited government philosophy.

 

[American]

"[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers... not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."

--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:383

 

[francois60]

Britain is an example of an unlimited government. Parliament may pass any law it wishes on any subject. The US is limited because we have a Constitution that specifies what powers Congress has.

Someone earlier brought up the commerce clause and Necessary and Proper clause. Those have been interpreted by courts since the New Deal to vastly expand the scope of federal power, but that wasn't really valid, it was just an excuse. Later courts have restricted the scope of the commerce clause to purely economic issues.

 

[American]

 

[American]

 

[rocket88]

Don't you think it's a tad schizophrenic to quote Adams and Jefferson?

 

[American]

Don't you think it's a tad schizophrenic to quote Adams and Jefferson?

Not at all, they were both on the committee to draft the DoI. Adams recommended Jefferson because he was the better writer, and from Virginia.

 

[American]

what didn't you understand about the very existence of it shows you are wrong?...
it's existence is a limit on government...it's very simple to understand.
if government has limits put on it... what do we call that?... I would call it a limited government, personally.... how about you?


why haven't you answered my question yet?

is our government limited or unlimited?

Ignore this tactic, he used this in at least one other thread and failed.

 

[rocket88]

Not at all, they were both on the committee to draft the DoI. Adams recommended Jefferson because he was the better writer, and from Virginia.

True, but they had vastly different ideas, and were political enemies (though personal friends) later in life.

 

[American]

True, but they had vastly different ideas, and were political enemies (though personal friends) later in life.

How vastly different?

 

[rocket88]

How vastly different?

You can start with the Alien and Sedition acts.

 

[H. Lee White]

So I ask the conservatives; where do you source this argument and what citations can you offer?

The Constitution.
It gives the federal government a set of specific, limited powers, and then leaves the remainder to the states.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The Constitution.
It gives the federal government a set of specific, limited powers, and then leaves the remainder to the states.

Not just the states, the people too.