Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ...
by adventured on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @05:22AM
(#11380356)
The framers of the constitution never intended for the United States to become a massive welfare state, either. There's absolutely nothing in there covering programs like universal healthcare, social security, food stamps, et al. The framers very blatantly would not have supported such vast tax based subsidization of entitlements in which one citizen is forced to pay for another. They also would never have supported the total government cost in the US being equal to nearly 40% of the economy. Does that mean the US should end those programs and slash the government down to a fraction of its current size?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ...
by ckozlowski on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @09:46AM
(#11381381)
The absence of these items from the Constitution does not imply their opinions on the matter. The Constitution sets out a system of government, not a definition of how the economy should be run.
As to what you assert their opinions would be, you'd have to look at their own writings and find something to the effect; noting what many of the constructs you described wern't even being considered during that time. But that evidence won't be in the Constitution.
The Constitution lays out who's responsible for what, and who can make what decisions. It is not a bible stating the mores of the nation.