I think that i hit the nail right on the head, which is really why you feel insulted. Who was to saythat the articles of confederation was not working? What was the problem? Notice there is little mention about this. And if so, would there not be support for a central government, but instead it was done in secret. Washington wasn’t even going to attend.
If the states were to go to tyranny, how could the federal governemtn stop them. After all agaiin, the federal government had no say over the affairs of the states. IT was only a limitation on federal power, not states.
And yet the point go right over yoiur head. The question is who was the creator of these rights? God as was mentioned prior or men who was mentioned in the new consitution. And where the rights come from means everything as if they are from men, then no republic can stand. Every law would end of being perverted by the ego of men.
If is nothing about belief but of who defines law. God, as a creator of man, or man as the creator of the government run by men.
Government protecting private property rights would protect peoples liberties and those from harm. The governments of today to little of this and are mostly political. Just look at detroit and see how well it operates. No, what you need is government limited to the protection of private property right. But the basis of this must be whether it is men or God who create law. If it is men, then such suffering is justified as a public good as soo often seen in history. If is is of God, then it is rights for everyone. What is so hard not to understand. You don’t need to be religious to understand this point.
ANd yes i do not know you but I do read what you wrie and hear your meaning. which does shoe such ignorance in these matters. ANd instead of trying to insult me as a messenger, your beef should be with God who has created a reality that differs from your view of things. But I do suspect what really angers you is that instantly, you know that I am right. But you falsely assume that I make a religious argument rather than and argument for liberty. Such thoughts were common prior to the constitution. SO, why not pick up a history book so you can be better informed and as such can actually have an impact for the coming future.