[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Then the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers should both be rejected as arbiters of original intent since they were both written when specific policies were not under discussion because the federal government had not yet been created so specific policies couldn’t yet be enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

either you're dense or you're just propagandizing, but let me give you an example.

there was some debate about whether the president or the congress should command the army. some argued for one side and some argued for the other. now we know which way that turned out since in the const. the pres. is commander in chief. but congress has to declare war. if you want a deeper understanding of why they set it up that way you can read the arguments. that's what I mean. if you can't figure that out then you're just a total propaganda account.

for example, in that example, if someone said, hey, the original intent was for the president to command the army and he cjould do whatever he wanted and if he wanted war the congress were just a rubber stamp and had to officially declare war whenever the pres wanted them to, then a quick reading of fed/antifed and other writings would quash that argument pretty quickly.

to sum up, founding of america was limited government, checks and balances, seperation of powers, etc., because basically the system is set up recognizing the fact that corrupt people will be drawn to power, and even non corrupt will become corrupt once there.