On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !