Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Where have all the conservatives gone?

What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes, but not as much as you erroneously think it did. When our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution they lived in the state of Virginia or the state of New York or the state of Massachusetts, etc. Our Founding Fathers were citizens of their respective states first and the United States of America second! To them the word state was synonymous with the word country. They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power. That is why our Constitution was sent to conventions of delegates from the various states to be ratified. The IX and X Amendments to our Constitution are limitations on the power of our central government.
What you should be tired of is shooting yourself in the foot. You do so when claim that our Constitution was not written to limit the power of "slightly enlarged" central government.

John Lansing
Robert Lansing
Alexander Hamilton
What I wrote about the debate about Hamilton and the general Welfare clause at the Constitutional Conventions was taken from James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Sophistry? No, documented history of the writing of our Constitution. NW Ponderer calls it sophistry because the facts about what our Constitution was written for, to create a limited central government does not agree with his incorrect interpretation of it. His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it. Thus he is not the expert on it that he thinks he is.

I thought the reason for the Constitution was to create a framework for a system of government.

Hold the phone! I did some deep research and I think that I found the true and correct purpose for the Constitution!! Seems it’s one of those secrets hidden in plain sight...

After hours of bone-wearying investigation, reading the astute and incisive opinions written herein, and even perusing Madison’s copious notes journaling the drafting of the Constitution - (did he really say that the phrase “to provide for the common defence and general welfare” was accidentally left in the text because it “went unnoticed”?) - a powerful thought came into my mind, “Why would anyone think that providing for the common defence and the general welfare of Americans is not an excellent idea?” And that it should be done at the national level makes sense, too, because, as with all forms of insurance, a larger pool works better to spread the burden of cost and lessen the overhead of management.

Exactly.

I forgot to amend this note previously:* Madison did not write the Constitution. He proposed numerous provisions of it, many of which were debated, discarded, adopted and/or modified by a group of individuals at the Constitutional Convention, which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals. His opinion, therefore, of its meaning and purpose is... one opinion. Persuasive, perhaps, but most assuredly not definitive. There were literally hundreds of others whose opinions affected the adoption and interpretation of the words contained in it. (Remember the Federalist papers? What was that all about?)

Which brings me to my second point: Apparently, friend, you didn't follow the link I provided, so don't understand the definition of "sophistry". It is a fallacious mode of argumentation; specifically, "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." It is sometimes referred to as "specious reasoning." When you say, "To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it." and that "In that [Hamilton] did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant." - that is an example of specious reasoning or sophistry. It is full of logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority), and omissions (e.g., that the only discussions/debates were those recorded by Madison).

Now, I will also admit that I love it, which is not charitable of me, when you write things that prove my point, but disprove your own. It's a habit of yours that I take guilty pleasure in. Which was exactly my point. You then reload the shotgun and point it at your... well, you get the metaphor - and assert "They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power." Who is this "they", Kemo sahbee? And why did they do exactly that, if it was not their intention? Maybe you meant to say, "some of them"? Or, "some argued against it"?

What chaps my hide is your broad generalizations and surety that you are "right" about things, when you are not, and even when you are proved in error, refusal to recognize it as such. Yes, there are limitations on the central government - I've never argued elsewise - but the argument that "To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution." Is. Just. Not. True.


* I originally mistyped that as "Peeviously". I thought that was an apt descriptor, and a freudian slip. Made me laugh.

Señor NWP,

You would do well to recall this quip of Ms. Parker:

“You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.”

If that don’t cut the mustard, try this:

“You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.” - D. Parker

Hyar’s one more TopDawg Reepublurkin’:

New sexual assault allegations against Hizzoner Kavanaugh