“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

Waffler, have you ever heard of corruption. Dead people in droves are voting, ineligible people are voting, people are voting multiple times, people in sequestered rooms are fabricating huge number of votes, etc., etc., etc. California recently closed down an investigation of illegal votes because the carnal god overlords' activities were being uncovered. I have friends in New Hampshire who have filmed bus loads of students (and others) loading up in colleges in Boston to go register and vote in New Hampshire. I've used this quote often but it fits very well here for the rest of the legitimate voters. “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” (Lysander Spooner) Neither "I", nor any free person has been included in "Congress is US" since at least before the War Between the States.

Waffler, your groupthink is showing.  'We' are the People.  There are people in Congress, but not ALL the People.  And because only a few people are representatives in Congress, the government cannot claim to be the People.  The People are the People, and the government is a very small subset of the People.  People in government frequently refer to themselves as the People rather than representatives of the People.  This is how they justify power grabs — 'hey we are the People so it is our right.'  The fact is, government officers and employees are beholden to reams and reams of regulations that the People are not subject to.  Because of the power and the risks being put in the hands of the government, they must observe strict rules — they are not permitted to do just anything.  Too often, government employees attempt to place those restrictions on the People themselves because they do not make the distinction between the free choices of the People versus the limited powers granted to government.

Another false equivalency, Fred.  The people are not the government — the government are representatives of the people and must follow the rules established by the Constitution which limit their powers explicitly. 

The government was not formed to guide us!  It was formed to protect us from being ruled, as had been the case for thousands of years.  The people individually are the best judges of guiding themselves.  

Certainly, you do not and cannot speak for the people.  This collectivist group-think is exactly the kind of rhetoric used to claim power that is not yours.  The people speak for themselves, and a representative government is to give the people a forum for the redress of grievances.  Since We the People come from many backgrounds, have varying skills, abilities and aims in life, the government cannot 'guide' us.  The laws are for the protection of lives, liberty, and property, i.e. the inalienable rights upon which the government was chartered.

The state is a poor guide for the people, as left unto itself, would make all serve the rulers to be the masters of all.  We are not to trust the government — ever.  Like a casino, office-holders are kept in check by the distribution of power because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sillik, your theocratic rhetoric, couched in circular word salad has no basis in fact, secularism or nature's law. Sillik your redefinition of words, concepts and doctrines does not change fact or law. FYI, at nature's law (Declaration of Independence) we the people (individually or in concert) are not the government ! ! !  Each person, as an individual is a sovereign that hires persons to represent his/her inalienable rights and liberty in a body politic of servants. At nature's law, corporeal man can NOT create law, he/she can only organize rules, as according to "order" (by example; driving on the right or the left side of the road). Sillik, your reference to proceedings and procedures in a theocratic expose of/within a philosophy such as "legal positivism" or "legal realism" is only appropriate for the theocratic patrons of that specific religion (call it government, socialism or otherwise). To make a difference, contribution and a positive contribution to the individual family of man (individually and in concert) is to promote individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law. Socialism is diametrically opposed and destructive to that means.

Fred, your collectivist group-think is showing again.  Indeed socialists have difficulty with establishing boundaries, particularly when defining what is 'mine', 'yours', and 'ours.'

The people are the people.  The government is comprised of a very small subset of the people.  A self-governing people are comprised of individuals who are self-governing and thus responsible for their own actions.

As a free individual, I cannot dictate to my neighbor, nor am I obligated to follow the dictates of my neighbor.  We each have claims to our labors and the fruits thereof, i.e. our property.

A representative government formed by mutual agreement of the people, have only the powers the individuals who chartered it have.  Therefore, if I can't do it to my neighbor, the government can't either.  The primary purpose of government is to resolve disputes in a 'civilized' manner while respecting the rights of each individual equally before 'the law.'

Again, the responsibility of the government is not to guide the people — far from it.  It is the responsibility of the people to guide the government!

To tear down such a government by revolution is indeed the means of socialism towards the end which is authoritarianism and the rejection of the inalienable rights upon which We the People founded our government.  And to that end, you can expect much resistance from the self-governing as you attempt to lay claim to what is not yours in the name of the common good.

Interestingly, Mr Archer in my "groupthink" I have no like minded associates and other than me you don't have any like minded associates. It interesting to me at least that you can't possibly notice this contradiction. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create consistency.

Correction: Sorry, Interestingly, Mr Archer in my groupthink I have no like minded associates and other than me you HAVE only like minded associates. It interesting that you can't possibly notice this contradiction. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create consistency.

(-; Sillik — interesting. Your group think is a void in nothingness (completely lacking in any material reality). Groupthink is a mental onanism that can tangibly in fact, have no associates. Whereas, individual sovereignty allows for no other like minded associates. It is interesting to me at least that you can't possibly notice this contradiction. ;-)