Comments on: Constitutional Baby Babble from TIME Magazine

By: Austin H.

Austin H. — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:01:46 +0000

The first proposal at the convention, the Virginia Plan, was a national plan. This plan, drafted by Mr. Madison was rejected. The Constitution accepted at the convention was a major limitation on federal power over the Virginia Plan and the ideas of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hamilton. The debate was so sharp as to what the limits were during the ratification conventions, that a Bill of Rights was adopted to further clarify the limited nature of federal power. There would not have been nine ratifying states had the Constitution not been a document of delegated (thus limiting) power.

Stronger than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, yes, but very much limited still.

By: The End is Far

The End is Far — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 02:18:12 +0000

The intent of the Constitution is listed in the Preamble. Limited gov't was a given as one can see in the letter of transmittal that Washington included after signing the Constitution into law. Natural Law and associated Rights require a Limited Gov't.

The less limited gov't is, the more limited individuals are. The Constitution was meant to strengthen the Union while maintaining as much Sovereignty possible.

It does say so as Rob pointed out in the first 8 of the Bill of Rights, Art 1 Sec 8 & 9, the 10th Amend, and let's not overlook the 9th, the most important set of Rights that represents Free Will. So long as that will does not abrogate another's Rights of course.

The Nation may have fractured and fell if a stronger Federal system had not been put into place, however Madison's arrogance prevented him from seeing the dangers the Anti-Federalists warned about, namely a Federal system devolving into a National system. Federalism has power over States, Nationalism is power over People.

By: Constitutional Baby Babble from TIME Magazine – Florida Tenth Amendment Center

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:56:32 +0000

[...] Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Close Follow Tenth Amendment CenterConstitutional Baby Babble from TIME MagazineTex(as), Lies and VideotapeThe American GuardrailFreedom Isnâ€™t Free. Seriously.TIME Magazine: No [...]

By: Locke

Locke — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:13:09 +0000

This guy states that the government forces us to purchase auto insurance. He has obviously not been to New Hampshire. What a dunce.

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:36:24 +0000

In Federalist Essay No. 40, James Madison wrote that the principles forming the foundation of the Articles of Confederation were being carried over into the new constitution:

"The truth is that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation. "

In Essay No. 45, Madison supported the above statement with the following:

"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL powers. The regulations of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. "

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:04:40 +0000

now mind you, this is not to say right or wrong on your final comment about whether or not the Articles may have been better. I\’m not sure either way…

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:58:34 +0000

Think of it this way. You run a small corner market. You have a manager that is allowed a petty cash for operational expenses. You give him a maximum daily spend of 20 dollars.

In time, you make a decision that 20 is not enough and you change it to 40.

You still have created a limit on his actions, but that the allowed power is greater.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:54:50 +0000

So the intent of the Constitution was to limit a federal government that was now greater than the one established under the Articles?

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:35:08 +0000

your second comments are a bit misguided. Just because the new constitution has fewer restrictions than the articles does NOT mean that the intent of it was to NOT limit federal power.

It was.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:33:02 +0000

Stengel: “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”
Answer: "Uh? What about the Bill of Rights? What about the enumeration scheme? What about Article I, Section 9?"

The Constitution actually established a stronger central government than the previous Articles of Confederation. Therefore the argument that the Constitution was created to limit federal power is misguided when considering the limited scope of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation. It's arguable that if left in place, the Articles would have stood as a greater block toward the expansive growth of centralized government we've seen since the implementation of the Constitution.