Comment: That doesn't make sense....

(See in situ)

That doesn't make sense....

Again, if it's something you are allowed to do yourself and the government were NOT allowed to do something you can't do under the NAP, then what's to object to?

I agree with the other commenter here that there were insufficient teeth regarding the ability to punish violators of the constitution within the government.

Nevertheless, the principle of delegation for only those powers a person can do himself under NAP, WAS in the minds of the founders and WAS embodied into the constitution, however imperfect.

So, again, I have to ask, why couldn't you support a limited government that operates under the delegation principle?