My posts have been intentionally "out there", though I'm afraid I do think the country was intended to be a limited republic. Granted, I haven't had the time to read all of the federalist papers yet (they're not easy reading).
But I have read the constitution; and it seems to lean in the favor of a very limited government.
* They had to ammend the constitution just to legalize income tax; that speaks oodles to me.
* The taxation that is allowed by the first draft of the constitution, is explicitly instructed to be fair (ie, the same for everyone), not anti-wealth. Technically, they say it is supposed to be based on population, and you probably could screw the rich even more in states with a large population, but that's not its intention.
* FDR's defecation of the constitution (the New Deal) seems wholly against the intentions of the founding fathers. Heck, just look at my signature for one of their opinions. (Granted, Jefferson was the coolest of them -- If heaven does indeed exist, I plan to knock back a few drinks with him and Andrew Jackson [because he's cool] in hell).
* At the risk of sounding like an even larger looney: I'm not a constitutional expert, but things like welfare and the New Deal seem so counter to what I percieve the intentions of the constitution to be, that (if they aren't) should be unconstitutional. The only justification I can find for such social-managing legislation is the general welfare clause, and there's pratically an entire federalist paper dedicated to that one -- and I don't read it in a way democrats would like.
Note: I was reticent to post this, as I haven't had time to read the fed. paepers thoroughly (and very well may be entirely wrong), but I promise to have read them before I bring up anything else about the nature of the orignal US.
