This statement is wrong in a very important respect. It should more properly read:
The Constitution, negotiated 225 years ago this summer in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, provided for a limited national government.
The difference eludes the author and is critical to understanding what plagues us today. The guarantor of limited government was not the Supreme Court or even the Constitution per se. In the American Republic the guarantor of limited government was the sovereignty of the states. Power divided is power constrained. And until the original balance is restored and the primary governing powers returned to the states we will continue our descent into tyranny.
I disagree, Trek...
No argument on adding the word “national” if you like.. yes, the constitution was written to lay out the rules for the national government because that body did not have power over the states regarding their state governments.
Still... All the founders believed in limited government at all levels. Too many “modern federalists” believe that the states - as “laboratories of democracy” (a term that makes me gag) were not necessarily to be limited in size and scope, so we could compare between big government states and small government states and see what works best.
Humbug.
In fact, the Founding generation expected all levels of government to be greatly limited. They expected state and local government to be even smaller than the national... they just concentrated so hard on limiting the national because they thought that was where the greatest risk to freedom lay.
They didn’t envision an era in which they most tyrannical dictators would be city, county and state governments too.
JFD
You fell into the trap as well.
The Constitution is not national but federal in nature.
The United states are supposed to be a Confederation, not a Federation.