While the platform recognizes the founding documents' proper, seminal roles, the platform might benefit from making it crystal clear to all at the beginning that America is a nation of laws and, as such, is bound by the original intent of the words written in the founding documents.

For example, the idea of a 'living Constitution' is a bad joke and completely negates the point of having a written constitution as the law of the land.

Thus, Federationists must recognize that America should be a nation of LIMITED central government that only has the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Debate about issues should START with reference to the proper part of the Constitution in question. The issue is NOT what a majority of the people want or what someone thinks is a good idea today. The fundamental question for every issue is whether the answer is already given in the Constitution. If so, that is the end of the inquiry and we follow the Constitution, whether we personally like the result of not. (Ron Paul is very good about this most of the time. You rarely hear anyone else in power even ATTEMPT to follow the actual wording in the Constitution.)

For example, under this analysis, ObamaCare is unconstitutional and unenforceable and should never have even been considered by Congress, let alone passed into 'law.'

Further, the enumeration by the Founders and Ratifiers of governmental powers clearly indicates that UNenumerated powers do NOT exist unless they are BOTH necessary AND proper to carry out an expressly enumerated power.

A Federationist must agree that the only way to alter the import of the words in the Constitution is by formal amendment. Judicial action or "liberal" interpretation are NOT alternative means to amendments.

As a consequence of these facts, when the Constitution is interpreted, it must be interpreted AGAINST expanding government power rather than the usual lawyer-like attempt to disingenuously argue that virtually anything is covered under some allegedly vague word or phrase (such as 'interstate commerce' or 'general welfare'). Here, recall the famous Bill Clinton argument: "It depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is" and you've got the idea of disingenuous 'lawyer-like' arguments.

Further, the 9th and 10th amendments are not just useless verbiage as most pols today seem to think; all power not granted to the central government remains with the people (and/or their respective States). Thus, States, through their citizens, are free to organize and act as they see fit as long as they do not violate an express provision in the Constitution.

Any person who does not understand and agree with these concepts does not really believe that ours is a nation of laws that is best served by following the law as written rather than only when it is convenient. If the law is flawed, it can only be changed by formal amendment and NOT by creative lying, judicial fiat or by simply ignoring it (as Obama just did with the Libyan issue vis-a-vis the War Powers Act and the 60 day limit).

Just my 2 cents...

Check the heading of the Platform; I think that should do it.

I agree that the headline hits this issue.

I didn't, however, see any discussion of original intent and modes of interpreting the Constitution that would help a Federationist analyze issues without getting into endless debates about what THEY think is great idea or what the majority of Americans want today.

I have found that most national policy debates completely ignore the starting point, which is the specific wording in the US Constitution and the intent thereof. When debates start at this point, I've found they take a different course than usual tripe I hear on Fox News or MSNBC.

I disagree; this is clear on its face:

Platform wrote..

We declare that The Constitution defines a limited Federal Government that has limited, defined and specific powers, and that the Constitution must be construed against expansion of the Federal Government. We assert that no federal law is valid unless it can cite a specific delegated power in the Constitution that authorizes its existence. We specifically note that the Preamble does not declare or define powers but rather declares goals, much as The Declaration states that one has the right to pursue happiness but does not guarantee your success in attaining it. Finally, we state that the "necessary and proper" clause applies to acts necessary and proper to carry out an enumerated power; reading that clause in any other way cannot be correct as it would render the entirety of The Constitution a null document.

The Constitution hardly needs a "platform" to reiterate its commitment to limited government; on this issue, the Constitution speaks for itself. What is needed is a practical mechanism for enforcing the constitutionally-defined limitations on government and the separation of powers. It has become amply apparent that the three branches of government can no longer be counted upon to voluntarily adhere to their constitutionally-prescribed role, and that the system of "checks and balances" has been corrupted beyond recognition. Whether the answer is a federal initiative process or something else, the principal challenge to any platform is to fashion a meaningful mechanism for returning the power of government to the people.

Quote:

The Constitution hardly needs a "platform" to reiterate its commitment to limited government; on this issue, the Constitution speaks for itself.

If that was the case, then there would be no exceptions to the fourth amendment - since the word "exception" or "except" does not appear in the fourth amendment, but somehow the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution does provide for exceptions and keeps expanding on just what the exceptions are.