Would our founding fathers of America approve of current government

Thank you for this interesting and lively debate. I will start with an overview, and then move on to conclude along my three contentions. Con has, once again, failed to give us any real argumentation. Many things are claimed, from "laws are not supposed to change," to "The Founding Fathers would want a smaller government," to "we should encourage self-sufficiency." Unfortunately, we have neither sources nor argumentation behind these claims; without either one, I think we can simply disregard these on face, though I will discuss them later on. All in all, when you compare the clear framework and argumentation that Pro has provided with the assertions that Con has offered, this round becomes quite clear before I even post a third round. 1. Philosophical Justification I have argued that the Founding Fathers had quite varied and disparate views regarding policy, especially along the Federalist/Democratic-Republican rift. Thus, I argue, it is quite difficult to actually weigh policy proposals in any meaningful manner; rather, if I have proved that the philosophical grounding of the system of governance and the constitutionality of most laws remains intact, then I win this round. I have argued that, most importantly, the background of the Founding Fathers was Locke's "Two Treatises on Government," which sets up an ideal republic, which was emulated by the Founding Fathers. Con has given us no reason to think that this system has been compromised in any manner. Provided this is the case, that there are still checks and balances, elections, and debates, the Founders, even if they disagreed with policy, would still approve of the system of governance, which is far more important than petty policy proposals. The only real counter we get here from Con is the idea that Americans like liberty, which means being free of governmental intervention. Firstly, no source or argument, just assertions here. However, I will dispute this on face; liberties are enumerated in the Constitution, meaning that, sometimes, the government can interfere, without impinging the civil rights and liberties agreed upon in the social contract. Since, later, I will assure that the Constitutionality remains intact, than these rights are not being impinged, and liberty is not being blocked in any meaningful way. 2. Constitutionality Con literally never engages with my discussion of constitutional law, so I will keep things brief here. However, the "necessary and proper," and "commerce" clauses of the Constitution give the federal government wide-ranging powers to regulate, to legislate, etc. Health care reform, social security, etc. all fall under this umbrella, and Con has given us no reason to think otherwise. Provided these provisions ARE constitutional, and have been approved as such by the Supreme Court, the Founders would surely, even if disagreeing with some policies, have no issue with the government writ large. Here, I would also like to engage with my opponent's argument that health care is a handout. The Affordable Care Act is that: a law to make health care more affordable and accessible. The only people getting care for free are those who are poor and eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. Giving these people free health care is beneficial; greater access to preventative care lowers medical costs down the line, leading to lower prices for everybody. Moreover, in the United States, even if one is without insurance, medical facilities MUST give care, meaning that is paid for by the taxpayer anyway. Unless Con truly advocates a country where people are dying in the streets because they are trapped in the cycle of poverty, this point is irrelevant. 3. Spirit of the Law I have argued that the Constitution must be flexible to meet changing societal needs. Con argues that changing laws is bad, because laws are not meant to be changed so as to provide order. I do not think I really have to explain how little sense that makes, but I will expound further. Many parts of our society today the Founders could not have anticipated: for instance, the Internet. New laws must be made to reflect this new change in society. Thus, the Constitution must be open, for instance, to protecting privacy rights, even on the Internet, though this is not enumerated in the Constitution. Changing laws are necessary to provide order, therefore; imagine a world where there are no traffic laws, environmental laws, etc. They are not in the Constitution, but they are absolutely necessary for the government to maintain order and carry out its powers. Conclusion Absent significant argumentation on Con, Pro should win this debate on face. However, even when evaluating arguments, I have conclusively shown that the philosophical grounding of the republic remains intact, that new laws are constitutional, and that the Constitution must be flexible. If I have proved any of these, than I win today's debate; the Founders had varied views, but they were united in their belief in a Republic and in a Constitution. I uphold all of these. I urge a Pro vote. Thank you.