Originally Posted by BlueTrain
There was not agreement even in the beginning as to how strong the federal government should be. Odd there is so little discussion as to how strong the state governments should be.
You'd be hard pressed to argue that ANY of the founders thought it should be anything like what we have now.
"Stronger" or "weaker" is one thing. Over-arching, ever growing, with powers, regulations and restrictions on every manner of day to day activities of the average citizen? No way. They expressly opposed such things. That's WHY they fought the revolution. Over-bearing, over-taxing, over-reaching government with no power to change it.
Their opinions were more along the lines of should the national government have a navy or not, not if they should be able to dictate and control every aspect of daily life. It's like if there is disagreement if taxes should be 5% or 10%, you can't come in 10 years later and say must be 90% would have been acceptable because we couldn't even agree what level they should be... we CERTAINLY agreed they shouldn't be 90.
As to the state governments, I did mention that in my previous post. I don't believe the founders foresaw that we would ever so completely lose control of our governments. They considered the state and local governments to be well handled by the people. First we lost control of the locals, then the states and now the national government.
They feared that the national government would be distant and large and we could lose control. I don't think they ever saw us losing control of the states and they CERTAINLY never intended the constitution that they were writing to be applied to the states. If it were, there would be no need for state constitutions and there would be no need for redundant declarations of right in those state constitutions.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.