Where does it state that the US government is to be limited?
It doesn’t. That’s a myth.
2 Likes
What type of anarchist are you? I lean minarchist.
I’m not the Bolshevik type of anarchist.
I’m more Rothbardian.
4 Likes
By presenting and creating a Republic.
It did state that (technically still does) when the 9th and 10th Amendments still mattered. There was a war fought over them, and the States lost.
I suggest that you read the original founding documents. The DOI, The Articles, the Treaty of Paris ( and all the subsequent treaties) and note that they stated that the states were independent and sovereign.
Then there’s the Constitution, which does not state that the states are independent and sovereign.
The Constitution was a coup d’ etat. It was created illegally, in secret, even the notes of the debates by Madison and Robert Yates (have you read them?) were kept secret until their deaths.
What the Constitution created was a corporation.The wording is so vague that it can be interpreted as seen fit. The current US government exemplifies this.
The US Constitution allows for unlimited government authority.
2 Likes
The 10th amendment is meaningless. It states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” but doesn’t state the ENUMERATED powers. As Hamilton stated in an address to Congress in 1791 defending the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States…
https://constitution.org/mon/ah-bank.htm
“It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers,” and implied powers are where the US government assumes their authority.
1 Like
The US constitution stated what the government is permitted to do. It was meant to limit powers. The bill of rights explicitly prohibited some things, also. Unfortunately, that has been discarded. People end up interpreting it, and when you get sophists doing that, you end up where we are. People have a lot of flaws.
Show me where the US government is limited by the Constitution.
1 Like
Those Amendments are pretty self-explanatory on how they were meant to limit the federal government. It’s there, whether acknowledged judicially these days or not.
Your post is bullshit. You people are simply the junkyard dogs for those who want to implement a central government that controls the very times and places you shit, and what you think while you are shitting. In other words, you people are the Gestapo of shit control.
1 Like
First, you state “those amendments.” Amendments.
They were not part of the original Constitution and were added two years after ratification.
It was suggested by Elbridge Gerry (of Gerrymandering fame) during the Philadelphia convention that a committee be formed to develop a bill of rights, this was seconded by George Mason. It was rejected unanimously by all the states.
Then, during the Virginia ratification debates (notes are available on-line for nine of the thirteen state’s ratification conventions) Patrick Henry (a great orator and voted against the Constitution) suggested a referendum to include a bill of rights in the Constitution, seconded by George Mason, again this was voted down.
The “Master Draft” of the bill of rights… https://constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm … by George Mason was watered down as to be ineffective.
So, there is no limit on US government authority by the Constitution.
Seems to me you’re advocating total or near anarchy…which IMO authoritarians love em because it provide them their supporter.
I understand what “some” are advocating but remember this…anarchy is a tool for authoritarians or in this case for powerful centgov.
As for Constitution…that’s the reason for the BoR’s…to limited such goverment.
IMO it hasn’t gone or listed enough limitations.
What in my post is BS? Please elaborate and maybe you could educate me.
I also used the phrase “used to” since semantics are what we’re arguing again. 
Naaa. I made my assertion. And that is my contribution here. I’ve seen what you people do and who you do it to. You don’t want educated.
2 Likes
The etymology of the word anarchy means “without rulers” so it is highly improbable that authoritarians are able to use anarchists for their cause.
And, yes, I am advocating for a human society without rulers.
I don’t need to be ruled… do you?
So… you have no argument.
Typical.
1 Like
Does “enumerated powers” ring a bell?
2 Likes
Not to be contrarian, but I’d imagine people who made a living with horse and buggy felt much the same way when the automobile was introduced.