(07-23-2018, 04:08 PM)pirkster Wrote: This is circling back again, again to jj's original point - which is the foundation of it all.

The Constitution was a framework for self governance.  Not a creation of a nanny state whose purpose is to control the people.

Amendments 1-10 are the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the individual.  The individual is not ignored until 9.  1-10 covers the individual and what the established federal government can't touch.  The creation of the Constitution itself was born from the Declaration of Independence.  They explicitly included these for the same reason you're suggesting the idea came about later.  That if it weren't explicitly stated, they entire purpose of the creation of our Constitution would be lost.

What you're missing is that the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence.  There isn't a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence, on which its foundations are based.  The people, not federal government, comes first.  That's the entire point of rights being inalienable... that not every single right had to be explicitly written, outlined, or amended for it to be a freedom that couldn't be encroached by man (in this case the Constitution)... that they were given by a creator and could not be taken by man-made government of any level.

It's also why the first and second amendments are so important.  If there should be a necessary call for another such declaration of independence, we the people would have the means to begin again if necessary.  Were our federal government continue to bloat unsustainably as it's currently doing, I'd expect a convention of states to occur before it gets anywhere near that point in order to clean up the mess.

I don't totally disagree.  The constitution certainly wasn't meant to have a federal nanny state result. 
But, originally, it could have allowed for individual states to be nanny states if the desire was there.

I was mostly surprised that you said "the first thing the Constitution does is establish individual rights".  That was a claim of fact, and it was totally wrong. Look at what order words and ideas appear in the text.  You have a preamble that doesn't mention individual rights, and then a description of how Congress will be set up that also doesn't touch individual rights, and so on.
If you meant to say that "the only correct way to read the Constitution is to begin with individual rights as a precept," well, that is an opinion.  Some people have that opinion.  
But it is very much a minority view and not followed by the US Supreme Court.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism

---

(07-23-2018, 04:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(07-23-2018, 04:08 PM)pirkster Wrote: This is circling back again, again to jj's original point - which is the foundation of it all.

The Constitution was a framework for self governance.  Not a creation of a nanny state whose purpose is to control the people.

Amendments 1-10 are the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the individual.  The individual is not ignored until 9.  1-10 covers the individual and what the established federal government can't touch.  The creation of the Constitution itself was born from the Declaration of Independence.  They explicitly included these for the same reason you're suggesting the idea came about later.  That if it weren't explicitly stated, they entire purpose of the creation of our Constitution would be lost.

What you're missing is that the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence.  There isn't a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence, on which its foundations are based.  The people, not federal government, comes first.  That's the entire point of rights being inalienable... that not every single right had to be explicitly written, outlined, or amended for it to be a freedom that couldn't be encroached by man (in this case the Constitution)... that they were given by a creator and could not be taken by man-made government of any level.

It's also why the first and second amendments are so important.  If there should be a necessary call for another such declaration of independence, we the people would have the means to begin again if necessary.  Were our federal government continue to bloat unsustainably as it's currently doing, I'd expect a convention of states to occur before it gets anywhere near that point in order to clean up the mess.

It will never get there, half the people of this country either want government to be their daddy or they are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to care.

I agree.  It is nearly impossible to imagine a convention of States happening with the intent of reducing the power of the federal government.  34 separate legislative bodies, who do not have regular communication with each other, would all have to coordinate a time and place to meet against an active campaign of propaganda and disinformation coming from Washington.  A coup, whether led by the President or not, seems more likely.  A convention of states that is intended to increase the power of the federal government is more likely because in that case the leaders in washington would cooperate and facilitate communication between the states.

---