Does the Constitution make the govt too big?

[NaT805]

Does it?

[10thAmendment]

Does it?
I'm not sure why this question is worded the way that it is. The purpose of the federal Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government to the relatively few powers enumerated to it by the Constitution. In other words, the federal Constitution was intended to be a strong leash on a small dog.

The reason that we now have a federal government has transformed itself into an unruly strong guerilla is the following. As a consequence of widespread ignorance of the few powers delegated to federal government by the Constitution, crooked federal lawmakers, presidents and judges have been able to get away with usurping state powers for the federal government.

Tho bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the major problem that the federal government is not only exercising constitutionally non-existent federal powers but also wrongly charging us taxpayers for exercising those powers and put the federal guerilla back in its cage. The series of posts at the following link should help people to understand how we got into this mess in the first place.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148854

[Alex Libman]

Here's my Constitution:

"OK, we gonna have absolute self-ownership by all human adults, which means respecting each-other's life, liberty, and property, from the age of reason to brain-death. The age of reason is 18 or when emancipated by a jury, whichever comes first. Liberty includes ability to express oneself by whatever means one desires, as long as it doesn't initiate physical force on others. Right to Property includes ability to own land / air / water / space territory where you are the master and commander and can set whatever rules you like. Right to Property also covers all possible material and contractual assets (including weapons and any possible information), and complete jurisdiction over your children with no intervention. Depriving someone of that right is only justified in self-defense. No taxes, no tariffs, no regulations, no government-owned institutions, no initiation of force, ever. No exceptions: so LSD, kiddie porn, flag burning, abortion, and David Duke's radio show must be tolerated as well. Congress shall make no other laws, period. In fact, there shouldn't even be a Congress! If someone comes to you claiming to act on behalf of a government other than this Constitution, then they're initiating aggression against you and you can (and probably should) kick their ass in self-defense! You wanna do something for the greater good, do it through non-governmental means. Because the government sucks. There should be as little of it as we can possibly get away with without having disorder that brings more harm than a minimal government would. OK, end of Constitution, good luck, and please, no amendments!"

[Conza88]

"Government is best when it governs not at all." - Thoreau

;)

[Kludge]

The government made itself too big....

While a great deterrent, the Constitution didn't prevent the bloated bureaucracy it intended to.

[Truth Warrior]

Growth, tis nothing but the inherent essential nature of the government beast ( tool ). :rolleyes: After a couple of centuries it tends to really add up. ;)

Leviathan AND Tyranny. :p

[Conza88]

Government inherently only protects its own growth.

Secure those Rights? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022230.html)

What does surprise is that many of those who claim to favor liberty still stop short of fully accepting the conclusion of their own premises: that government is inefficient and operates via aggressive means. If we claim that the state should not be engaged in education because the result is monstrous, why not, then, apply the same reasoning to other functions that the state performs, such as defense and protection and law and courts? We oppose state education, state entertainment and every other state industry but when it comes to police and justice and law, many --too many-- give their consent and support!

It seems to me that the classical libertarians (such as minarchists and constitutionalists) have made a terrible mistake. They have taken the most important of institutions, namely the protection of our rights, and given them to the monopolist. I believe that, if it were possible, it would be preferable to have the government take care of things like entertainment and toilets instead of the "slightly" more important functions of defense and law.

[Truth Warrior]

Government expands to meet the needs of expanding government. ;) < lather, rinse, repeat > :p




"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

[NaT805]

I think a "federal" government is more than is required to protect liberty. That said, any federal government is too big no matter what. Even though the Constitution was to maintain limited govt, I think the government needs to be limited even more. I don't like "fiction" governments.

What was wrong with the confederacy?

[TruthisTreason]

Depends on who is doing the interpreting.

[torchbearer]

um, the constitution outlines in enumeration exactly what the government can do.
and if it isn't written down, the government doesn't have the authority.

The problem wasn't the constitution, it was men like abraham who ignored it completely and used the federal military against the states.
There was no constitution after 1860.

[Truth Warrior]

um, the constitution outlines in enumeration exactly what the government can do.
and if it isn't written down, the government doesn't have the authority.

The problem wasn't the constitution, it was men like abraham who ignored it completely and used the federal military against the states.
There was no constitution after 1860. And the Constitution / US Federal government did absolutely NOTHING to stop him. :p :rolleyes: Hunh, kinda like now. :rolleyes:

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

[NaT805]

um, the constitution outlines in enumeration exactly what the government can do.
and if it isn't written down, the government doesn't have the authority.

Yeah and I still think it makes the government too big. Congress shouldn't have the power to tax, we shouldn't have a supreme court, or a president (unless in time of war). Congress should meet just a few times a year if at all.

[torchbearer]

Yeah and I still think it makes the government too big. Congress shouldn't have the power to tax, we shouldn't have a supreme court, or a president (unless in time of war). Congress should meet just a few times a year if at all.

you can have taxation if you have real representation.
as in, the people, through their representatives have agreed to fund a military defense policy. this is fine.

But- congressmen putting money into their brother-in-law's business and giving some payback contracts to big donors on our dime is not fine. technically, it would have been assumed that if the rep. taxed and spent the money in a way not to the liking of his constituents they would elect someone else.
that is the fallacy in the system. super-majority of voters are completely ignorant.

The press was our ally in the times of the american revolution. the printing press was our propaganda machine. now it works against us, for it is the pet of our new masters.

research the history of central banks. this is the catalyst for big government.
big government cannot exist without a fiat currency and its central bank.

if you think the constitution is to blame, you are an idiot.

[NaT805]

Taxation is an initiation of force. The government shouldn't have the power to tax. Any government that is capable if initiating force that an individual could not do, is a government I won't support.

[torchbearer]

Taxation is an initiation of force. The government shouldn't have the power to tax. Any government that is capable if initiating force that an individual could not do, is a government I won't support.

taxes can be voluntary too. how do we know when its voluntary? when people agree to pay it.
So, taxation is not force. Forced taxes are force.

How are you going to pay for a common defense if people didn't agree to pay for it together?

[mport1]

It establishes a government, so yes.

[CCTelander]

The CONstitution is a charter for unlimited government. The very idea that it somehow limits government is ludicrous.

[torchbearer]

The CONstitution is a charter for unlimited government. The very idea that it somehow limits government is ludicrous.

what part of enumeration don't you understand? i can try to dumb it down for you if necessary.

[Kludge]

what part of enumeration don't you understand? i can try to dumb it down for you if necessary.

You're very arrogant to think a common Paulite can understand that which ranking congressmen cannot.

Besides - is it anymore right when a state bans gay marriage or creates a road on taxpayer money?

[Agent Chameleon]

I have to agree with Torchbearer on this.

While it would be nice if the Constitution was worded better, enumeration is fairly self-evident for anybody with decent reading comprehension skills.

The fault lies with politicians, and the people who voted them in.

[NaT805]

taxes can be voluntary too. how do we know when its voluntary? when people agree to pay it.
So, taxation is not force. Forced taxes are force.

How are you going to pay for a common defense if people didn't agree to pay for it together?

You don't understand what I am saying.

[NaT805]

The CONstitution is a charter for unlimited government. The very idea that it somehow limits government is ludicrous.

That's the idea I got after I read it a few times...

[malibuu]

The government made itself too big....

While a great deterrent, the Constitution didn't prevent the bloated bureaucracy it intended to.

No, it was an 1819 Supreme Court decision - McCulloch v. Maryland - which expanded the U.S. Constitution's intent
for limitations put on the federal government.

This case established the principle of "implied powers" granted by the Constitution to the federal government -
and we can truly doubt whether such federal power over the states would heve ever have been ratified by the states.

[Truth Warrior]

Government just expands to meet the needs of expanding government. Tis but the essential nature of the beast. :p

[slothman]

[QUOTE=Truth Warrior;1593870]Government expands to meet the needs of expanding government.

Where did you get this quote?
I only heard of it from Civilization 4 in which it
uses beurocracy(sp) instead.

I don't think the Const. itself has made it too big.
I think ignoring it made the gov't too big.

[Truth Warrior]

[quote=Truth Warrior;1593870]Government expands to meet the needs of expanding government.

Where did you get this quote?
I only heard of it from Civilization 4 in which it
uses beurocracy(sp) instead.

I don't think the Const. itself has made it too big.
I think ignoring it made the gov't too big. I have no idea where or if I got it, I've been saying it for decades. ;)

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[Natalie]

I think the Constitution is basically perfect. Unfortunately our leaders completely ignore the Constitution.

[Truth Warrior]

I think the Constitution is basically perfect. Unfortunately our leaders completely ignore the Constitution. And the basically "perfect" Constitution apparently allows "our" leaders to completely ignore it.

Any "system" dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable.

[NaT805]

Any "system" dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable.

Unless we all have guns. :cool:

[revolutionist]

Depends on who is doing the interpreting.

Yeah, If it's Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, then No. If it is John Marshall destroying Article 1 section 8 then yes.

[MsDoodahs]

does the const. make the gov't too big?

Evidently.

[Uriel999]

Yeah, If it's Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, then No. If it is John Marshall destroying Article 1 section 8 then yes.

Seriously, why did Jackson never duel that guy!? Ah, the good old days...could we bring back dueling?

[Natalie]

Since the president's job is to uphold and defend the Constitution, the "debates" should just be a contest of who knows the Constitution inside and out. Everybody would already know what the nominees are going to do as President, because it's in the Constitution. It would be so awesome if it was really like that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yup. We should have no government. Just nothing. Go live in the woods and leave me the fuck alone.

[Truth Warrior]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[TastyWheat]

I think they could've written the preamble with stronger, pro-liberty language, but not everyone agreed on the direction of the country. By the time Jefferson got into office the federal government had already started its quest for more power.

[NaT805]

John Marshall...I don't like that guy.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah, If it's Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, then No. If it is John Marshall destroying Article 1 section 8 then yes.

Madison was a big government Federalist. Fuck him! :mad: Gotta love Jefferson, though! :D

[unreconstructed1]

Madison was a big government Federalist. Fuck him! :mad: Gotta love Jefferson, though! :D

+1