CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dcraelin]

...if the founders didnt want big government

We know what they wanted from the Constitution and from the way they governed under the Constitution. They wanted tiny tiny govt. As soon as Hamilton opened his mouth he and his party were crushed by Jefferson and Madison who had a quickly formed the Republican Party in 1793.

Jefferson:
"The path we have to pursue [when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

you are so so wrong.... Jefferson was an exception

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

they ceased to be a viable party

not neccesarily because of the big government they created...but because they were seen as lackeys for the rich.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..

but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..
but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..
but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..
but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..
but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..
but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

 

[dcraelin]

Madsion changed his mind when the big-government federalists pushed throught a scheme to compensate speculators in government contitnentals who had bought up the papaer from rev war vets who
had no clue the government would pay up ..finally.

Income tax has nothing to do with it....no one had income taxes back then..
but they did have a carriage tax which hit the rich more...so wouldnt be opposed.

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

dear I've asked 5 times now where it says they wanted big government?

 

[dcraelin]

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

dear I've asked 5 times now where it says they wanted big government?

well cuddle cakes...I doubt they put in the thing waht they really wanted.....but like good sell-out lawyers they included loopholes

all neccessary and proper means etc. etc.

 

[dblack]

no idea what subject you are on, do you? It appears you lost so are trying to change the subject to nothing

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

Just like now, they talked out of both sides out of their mouths. Hamilton was all about limited government when he was trying to sell the Constitution to the anti-federalists. But once the ink dried on their signatures, he changed his tune.

 

[Olde Europe]

My point of view re government spending is that the Congress no longer even considers original intent of limitations on the federal government and, for its own self-serving interests, is spending the country into bankruptcy and is doing a great deal of harm in the process. Take away Congress's ability to tax, borrow, and spend for ONLY what the Founders intended, and you immediately make possible:

1. A balanced budget and minimal or no national debt.
2. Elimination of the unhealthiest forms of entitlement mentality and the unintended bad consequences those have produced.
3. Elimination of the greatest part of graft, malfeasance, cronyism, and corruption that exists.
4. And, once the economy readjusts, almost certain increased opportunity for prosperity for all.

Yet you fail to convince me that your view of the Founders' original intent is anything but your own view, and you further fail to convince me that there is a way for any "original intent" (or any understanding thereof) to be implemented and secured for the long term.

1. A balanced budget in times of economic distress is contrary to the nation's best interest, and thus a "balanced budget amendment" is a simplistic, one-size-fits-all measure that was rightly defeated time and again.

2. The population's mentality is usually quite unimpressed with legislation, and the banksters and other owners of the country will probably never give up their sense of entitlement to a privileged access to the national trough.

3. See above.

4. See #1) above.

You wish to govern a country of the 21st century according to the notion of an agrarian society of the 18th. If you wish to see the elderly and the unemployed / unemployable to die of starvation, and the poor who unwisely choose to fall ill to rot unattended, do please say so overtly, since hiding behind notions of bare-bones government, whilst covering up the inevitable consequences thereof, doesn't cut it. I, for one, don't begin to understand that. I further find that you misdiagnose the major causes of (over-) spending and deficits, which are the U.S.'s imperial ambition and leaving the richest and international corporations off the hook in terms of contributing to the commonweal.

The U.S. was from the onset designed, and intended to be, a plutocracy, an aim achieved by keeping the rabble as far away from having any influence as possible, so as to thwart the rabble's much-feared proclivity to vote the money of the rich into their own pockets. In the interest of open debate, if that's the core of your motivation to go back to the Founders' original intent, I invite you to say so overtly.

 

[dblack]

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

Just like now, they talked out of both sides out of their mouths. Hamilton was all about limited government when he was trying to sell the Constitution to the anti-federalists. But once the ink dried on their signatures, he changed his tune.

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

 

[Olde Europe]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

 

[dcraelin]

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

Just like now, they talked out of both sides out of their mouths. Hamilton was all about limited government when he was trying to sell the Constitution to the anti-federalists. But once the ink dried on their signatures, he changed his tune.

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

I agree, false rhetoric does undermine democracy. and it was more than that...the only way the court could revue it when they did, as I understand was because it wasnt considered a tax.

 

[dcraelin]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

 

[dblack]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

 

[dblack]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

 

[Foxfyre]

My point of view re government spending is that the Congress no longer even considers original intent of limitations on the federal government and, for its own self-serving interests, is spending the country into bankruptcy and is doing a great deal of harm in the process. Take away Congress's ability to tax, borrow, and spend for ONLY what the Founders intended, and you immediately make possible:

1. A balanced budget and minimal or no national debt.
2. Elimination of the unhealthiest forms of entitlement mentality and the unintended bad consequences those have produced.
3. Elimination of the greatest part of graft, malfeasance, cronyism, and corruption that exists.
4. And, once the economy readjusts, almost certain increased opportunity for prosperity for all.

Yet you fail to convince me that your view of the Founders' original intent is anything but your own view, and you further fail to convince me that there is a way for any "original intent" (or any understanding thereof) to be implemented and secured for the long term.

1. A balanced budget in times of economic distress is contrary to the nation's best interest, and thus a "balanced budget amendment" is a simplistic, one-size-fits-all measure that was rightly defeated time and again.

2. The population's mentality is usually quite unimpressed with legislation, and the banksters and other owners of the country will probably never give up their sense of entitlement to a privileged access to the national trough.

3. See above.

4. See #1) above.

You wish to govern a country of the 21st century according to the notion of an agrarian society of the 18th. If you wish to see the elderly and the unemployed / unemployable to die of starvation, and the poor who unwisely choose to fall ill to rot unattended, do please say so overtly, since hiding behind notions of bare-bones government, whilst covering up the inevitable consequences thereof, doesn't cut it. I, for one, don't begin to understand that. I further find that you misdiagnose the major causes of (over-) spending and deficits, which are the U.S.'s imperial ambition and leaving the richest and international corporations off the hook in terms of contributing to the commonweal.

The U.S. was from the onset designed, and intended to be, a plutocracy, an aim achieved by keeping the rabble as far away from having any influence as possible, so as to thwart the rabble's much-feared proclivity to vote the money of the rich into their own pockets. In the interest of open debate, if that's the core of your motivation to go back to the Founders' original intent, I invite you to say so overtly.

I don't mind if people disagree with me (no matter how wrong they are ), but please don't try to tell me what I wish when even a cursory review of my posts would completely dismantle your opinion of what I wish. Most especially when you phrase it in leftwing propaganda as to what you seem to think we constitutional originalists want to happen or what is satisfactory for us which is both insulting and completely erroneous.

As for the ridiculous notion that the Founders designed a government for the plutocracy, what is the one constant theme from the big government people in modern times? That the rich have too much, yes? That there is too wide a disparity between the rich and the poor? And yet they continue the very policies designed to limit the ability/incentive for the rich to help others become more rich--that would be by forcing them to shelter their income, do business elsewhere, limit expansion and growth--and the big government people continue the policies that provide encouragement and incentive for people to remain poor.

I once thought such efforts to be misguided but well intended. I no longer believe that is the case. I believe such efforts are deliberate to keep those in government safely in government where they are greatly enriching themselves at our expense. And to do so they have to keep the power and resources funneling into the central government instead of returning those to the states and local communities who would almost certainly do a much better job of meeting the needs of the people with them. It is no accident that as of 2011, the highest per capital incomes in the USA were the Washington DC metro area.

My hope for an improved Constitution would be to restore the original limits on federal government and thereby correct a whole host of bad things. Where you and I disagree is that if the federal government does not do it, then it won't be done.