[cpher]

Unless I'm an idiot but you just contradicted yourself or misunderstand-ed what you wrote. The Federal government is indeed intentionally limited in power. Why would you want it any other way?

I'm more of a Federalist--confusing name for an important concept. But I don't think that's what we're talking about. It sounds like we're disagreeing with what constitutes "general welfare" as you highlighted.

Ok, where do you draw the line in modern society? If you want to invoke the argument "what would the framers have wanted?" then what do you think they meant? Who can limit the definition of "general welfare" now. All you need is a bunch of loud people for any random issue, then it becomes a general welfare issue.

[rayiner]

When I used the word "government" in my original post, I was referring to government generally, not the federal government specifically. Thus, your point about the limited powers of the federal government is irrelevant, because by design the state governments have almost all the powers that the federal government does not. If voters wish to achieve a particular end, the government has the power to pursue it, so long as it doesn't violate any individual rights.

[cpher]

There is absolutely nothing in your OP that indicates you're referencing anything other than the Federal government (given the thread's context), and it wouldn't matter anyway. How is that irrelevant? At this point I have no idea if you're even writing what you intend to--I'm not understanding it.

Yes, the state governments should have more power--I assume that was your point.

[rayiner]

There's nothing in my OP that suggests I'm even talking about the U.S. much less the U.S. federal government. I was talking about democracies in general.

> Yes, the state governments should have more power--I assume that was your point.

No, my point is that your original statement ("it's certainly not the function of the USA govt to provide anything but what's defined in the constitution") is wrong. That might be true of the federal government, which is limited in scope, but that is not true of the state governments, which are not and were never conceived to be. The state governments can (try to) provide, almost without limit, whatever voters want them to provide.

[prawn]

For what it's worth, Rayiner's comments make perfect sense to me and in context of the broader thread. I wonder if you've approached them with a preconceived intent or argument and, as such, read into them?

[gone35]

You clearly misunderstood.

Since the State (in the academic sense of the word, with capital S) can comprise institutions at multiple administrative levels (eg state and federal), it is entirely possible to have a federal government with limited powers against a backdrop of strong state governments.

Indeed, some legal historians like William Novak have argued that many of today's widespread notions around the historicity of "limited government" and the early republic are largely revisionist myths [1].

[1] http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/labor/documents/TheMyth...