(07-20-2018, 07:48 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 03:08 PM)pirkster Wrote: The FIRST thing the Constitution lays out is the right of the individual.  This comes before all else.

The SECOND thing it does is define limits on federal power.

The Constitution's purpose was certainly NOT to strengthen it.  It was made to be the Supreme Law of the Land, while at the same time explicitly expressing ONLY those rights granted to the federal government.  It established heirarchy over states, yet severely limited it's scope by explicitly LIMITING federal powers as stated in the document.

It wasn't until the Raw Deal that the Federal government became the bloated, fiscally unsustainable form it is today.

The first thing the Constitution lays out is that people are writing it. 
"We the people,"
Then it says why they are writing it.  
"in order to form a more perfect union..." Etc.
You don't get to individual rights until Amendment 9, adopted a couple of years later.  You might have thought Amendment 1, but that's not correct.  Amendment 1 says that the feds won't interfer with those specific, enumerated rights.  It wasn't until Amendment 14 passed in 1868 that it was established that state and local governments also couldn't step on our enumerated rights. 
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.  Under the Articles, the federal government was much weaker.  The Constitution gave a stronger federal government compared to what came before.

In spite of these big errors you make, your third point is correct.  There were finite, enumerated powers, and those powers didn't get "elastically expanded" until the New Deal (I think that's what you mean by Raw Deal?).

---

(07-20-2018, 07:47 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Oh mike....  Britain?   Compulsory euthanasia in the land of Churchill?

if you're going to judge a system of government by its ability to consistently stand up for individual rights, especially the right of old people to access medical care if they want it, yes the British government has come up short lately. 
but considering that it's been nearly 400 years since it was last threatened with any kind of violent overthrow or Civil War, and considering that this euthanasia issue is only a couple decades-old at most, perhaps a longer view of things is called for.