Then the obvious conclusion is why have a government at all? This is the basis of anarchy. Yet the fearful and otherwise cowardly souls will always demand a government in some form. Whether it's basis is belief or religion, law or philosophy or any other, if there truly can be, the sheep will have a shepherd.
What then is to be provided? The constitution has been no better at staving off tyranny than any other form of government devised by men. Many even argue, and rightly so, that the constitution is the root of our tyranny today. We claim to despise the rule of monarchy yet it has surpassed the length of the existence of the constitution by many times with no more ill effect than we endure today under the constitution.
To a large degree, size does matter. In the case of any nation-state of note they worked unceasingly to increase their physical boundaries. This is done until a certain point is reached where that nation-state can no longer exert effective influence and control. It then begins the process of receding or, if instantaneous, it implodes or collapses in on itself. The only difference between these then is the length of time. The end result will always be the same, an ultimate collapse or demise. For centuries, even millenia, the human race has toyed with and experimented with the concept of the nation-state yet the drive for expansion into something much larger has always worked against it's success.
It is in this aspect of size where it can said that the Articles of Confederation was superior to the the current US Constitution. Under the AoC the several states retained a good portion of their individual sovereignty. With this scheme the united States truly was a republic. Of the existing states under that scheme the drive toward expansion was checked by the existence of the neighboring state or a natural boundary. By centralizing political power and authority into the central government as devised in the constitution our path to tyranny and our demise was cast. The central government was made free to expand it's control and authority as far as it could. The states and even the people were made powerless to stop it.
This, as described above, is but one of the many ways in which we were deceived by the actions of certain men among the founders. In the process of centralizing authority and control, great power was vested in a group of men who were duly authorized by this same constitution to further empower themselves as they might think. Art.1, Sec.8, cl.18 is a perfect example of this. Others of a similar nature are sprinkled liberally about the document. Even the highly vaunted (and highly diluted) Bill of Rights was or is NOT able to restrain this body who was empowered to freely wield both sword and purse to gain what they would. This high degree of empowerment was clearly pointed out by the anti-consolidationists (later called anti-Federalists) as the course that would bring us to where we are today. Yet through craft and deceit the federalists prevailed.
Now, I do not argue that the Articles of Confederation were wholly superior in every way. They too, had their short-comings as a scheme to initiate and perpetuate a limited government. Despite it's short-comings though, it remains more true to the promises of freedom, liberty and limited government than the current device.
If you wish to investigate this argument in more detail than I present here, I would encourage you to click through to
www.project-exodus.org and peruse the forums there. Ask questions, join the discussion/debate. It will tax your thinking and challenge certain conceptions of how government could work.
Chipper
