Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.
Thanks for that acknowledgment, my friend.

I wrote a little bit about this on another thread. Rather than cross-posting, I'll just note the relevant point, here: a government is given authorities and restrictions, as its denizens are. The Constitution gave the central/federal government certain powers, and left others to the States. Within its authority it can create requirements, prohibitions, restrictions and permissions. Examples might be: a requirement to file taxes; a prohibition on lying to Congress; a restriction on political donations; permission to drill on public lands.

Friend Hatrack has stated on several occasions that the Constitution was created "to limit government." I have also, on several occasions, pointed out the error of the statement as a generality. That there are "restrictions" on the power of the federal government has never been contested. It is the asserting that this was the "purpose" of the Constitution that is both erroneous and ridiculous. (The most succinct demonstration is the supremacy clause.) For example, the federal government is given authority to conduct foreign affairs. States can't do it, citizens can't do it. There are prohibitions with penalties (Logan act); there are limited authorizions (e.g., States given permission to negotiate trade compacts). But, in that sphere, federal authority is plenary.

In other areas the federal government shares authority. In some areas, it is specifically restricted (e.g., establishment of religion or prohibition thereof). Yet, even in those areas, the government may have some influence or impact. No such constitutional proscription is absolute, no matter how definitive the language may seem. For example "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech" seems pretty definitive, yet time, place and manner restrictions are upheld, and some speech is actually prohibited (incitement to riot).