Skip to comments.Federalist 84 – Hamilton Opposes a Bill of Rights for Good Reason
Posted on 07/30/2009 5:02:27 AM PDT by Loud Mime
click here to read article
As I've said before, don't you think any one interested in limited government would exclude phrases like "general welfare", "necessary and proper", "interstate commerce"? A new constitution would chain them down even further. This one, in my view, is beyond repair. Much of it could be kept in a new one, but it's too screwed up to be fixed by amendment. Like the founders who decided to scrap the Articles of Confederation altogether (without authorization), a totally fresh start would be the only way to try to get it right. And of course, no liberals could be involved in it. They are the disease.
Seriously, no government design can withstand the continued assaults of those who change the meaning of words and laws. No matter what the Constitution reads, the foundations of the language and the constitution’s intent may be redefined into anything a rebel groups wishes.
I consider the ratification of the Constitution as the proper authorization for the AOC’s demise. Even New York, who withdrew its delegation (save Hamilton) from the Convention, believed in the change. In the long run, the new Constitution was a necessity.
But it fell victim to, dare I say, CHANGE. The interstate commerce issue was redefined to include incredible federal powers....who would have thought that Abortion would fall under interstate commerce? Can you imagine the Founders faces if they heard of this in person?
That’s what CHANGE does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.