Actually no. The Articles of Confederation kept a federal system limited in power, but that also kept the Gentry from having power… So without any support from their States, delegates met to draft a constitution… Going against the Law…
Whether you like him or not, Alexander Hamilton was correct…. Laws meant to limit only really serve to tell the Congress where to… It presents challenges to them. Remember, the Constitution came about after Shay’s Rebellion. It wasn’t about limiting the power of the Federal Government… But about limiting the power of the people and the States… And about creating a Federal Government.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
The biggest problem with the statement is that it’s one-sided.
Yes, the Constitution defines a lot of limits on federal power and is there to prevent runaway power.
It also established a government with the authority to overrule the states, replacing the too-weak government of the Articles.
The over-simplified presentation of the Right and Libertarians is … well, … over-simplified. And thus wrong.