Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Oh, JFC on a hockey stick, Senator, I can't believe you don't realize you just made my point. Madison said absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, about the size of the government. What he discussed was the purpose. As I said, and he said, the Constitution divides responsibilities between levels of government "The powers delegated", which is exactly what I pointed out.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I'm sorry, my friend, but that assertion is utter nonsense. The Constitution was not "written for the purpose of limiting the size of our government." Not in any way, shape, or form. It was to establish a government. That was its purpose. Period. That it divided the aspects of government between elements and levels of government is not a "limitation" but a structure. I know you love the rubric "Classical Liberalism" but it is not suitable for every idiosyncratic belief of yours.
According to the primary author of our Constitution it was written to limit the size of our government. "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." James Madison
When the powers of our government are few and defined they are limited! Do you really think that the men who had risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, in a war against the most powerful and oppressive government in the world are going to create a large and oppressive government? No, they are not going to do that! Then a written contract, a constitution, is a limitation on what can be done by those who write that contract. A house is a structure, does it not limit put a limit on the activities of those in it? So, like a house the structure, our Constitution, limits what our government can do.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Second, "size" and "substance" are not synonyms. Not in this context, nor virtually any.
No, they aren't, at least not in this context. That's why I said my comment was grammatically wrong.
But as Thesaurus.com says size can be a synonym for substance. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/size?s=t

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "Unless you can prove that our Constitution is not the basis of Classical Liberalism there is no argument." I simply cannot parse your sentence or grok its meaning.
Then perhaps you don't understand what Classical Liberalism is. After all you don't think our Constitution is a limitation on our government.
That last claim, again, is a non sequitur. Our Constitution is not a paean to "classical liberalism" as the term hadn't even been invented yet. I'm quite familiar with both what it actually means and how it has been bastardized by neoconservatives and libertarians to mean something else.
To put it politely you are full of snit! You cannot accept the fact that you are wrong. A government whose powers are "few and defined" is a limited government. You are not the freaking expert know it all that you think you are! Whether or not you want to believe it our Constitution was written to limit the size of our government. Here is another quote from Madison that proves our Constitution created a limited government. "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary