>>If you want to disagree with me, please support your thoughts. It is my position that the founders in no way intended a limited government. The battle was over federal vs. state powers. They never would have taken the trouble to meet in Philadelphia if they wanted us to continue as a lawless society.
>
>I realize I've already offending your sensibilities, but this is such nonsense that it needs to be challenged before you can claim your words were turned around.
>
>First, we were hardly a "lawless society" before the writing of the Constitution. As subjects of the the crown there was a legal structure, a pretty established tax authority, and as much enforcement as was possible given the demographics, logistics and temperament of the colonies.
>
>Nor were we "running around like hillbillies".
>
>The idea that the Constitution, which could not even be adopted without the Bill of Rights - limiting the power of the government and defining the rights of the citizen against any possible future government encroachment "in no way intended a limited government" shows you really are out of your depth on this and just digging yourself deeper.
>
>If Tracy wants to play, I'll just let her debate you point by point but this really has descended into arguing design patterns with the kid who sells computers at Best Buy <g>

Hey - that's not fair to the kid.