Would our founding fathers of America approve of current government

Thank you for this round. I will begin with three contentions, then I will respond to Con's argument. My first contention is about the philosophical background of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were quite a varied bunch with regards to policy views and, indeed, the future of the country; for instance, figures like Jefferson envisioned a small government with states' rights and an agrarian society, while Hamilton envisioned a larger, more powerful federal government to regulate the increasingly industrialized fledgling America. As a result of these varied views on the role of the government, when viewed through the context of the Constitution, I find it difficult to generalize about policy; certainly, Jefferson would not be a fan of some policies, Washington others, etc. However, the philosophical grounding of the new Republic was, primarily, in John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government," which set up basic ideas about rights and governance. Locke's conception of rights centered around the idea that all men are created equal, and have equal rights claims with regards to things like property, etc. We see this enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, though full actualization of this has been an ongoing process. With regards to governance, Locke envisioned a republic, whereby the citizens would elect representatives, who would then reflect their views in a legislative body. The government would be complete with an executive and a judiciary, who would be able to check and balance each other. So long as this fundamental system remains in play, the Founding Fathers would certainly accept the basic premise of the Federal government. My second contention will regard Constitutional law; I understand that Con really enjoys the 9th Amendment, but he has not dealt with the multiple other and somewhat conflicting provisions buried within. I will cite two, in particular, that justify actions like health care, social security, etc. The first of these is the "necessary and proper" clause located in Article I, Secton 8 of the Constitution. It states that, "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Essentially, this is a sweeping clause which allows the government to enact laws related to implicit rights in the Constitution, and has been cited since McCullough v. Maryland to enact regulations on the economy, to enact Social Security, etc. What this clause, in effect, does, is to magnify the powers of the federal government beyond those expressly enumerated. The second of these is the "commerce clause," located in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as well. It states that, "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." What this means is that the Federal government has wide-ranging powers to regulate economic policies that affect citizens in disparate states. Social Security was also justified along these lines, and a strong argument could be made to support health care. My final contention will regard reading of the Constitution. I see that my opponent espouses strict construction, but never actually justifies it. I, rather, support a more vivacious reading of the document, that allows the government to change as society changes. I think it necessary to view the Constitution in the manner since many things, including education, health care, the Internet and other technological advances, and changes in social policy necessitate a flexible government. The Founding Fathers could not possibly envision such changes, and surely they would not wish to keep the United States in the 1700s. Essentially, I am endorsing the living document perspective. In order for the government to even function, it must have a flexible system of laws that can change as the times do. The Founding Fathers foresaw that they could not foresee everything, and, thus, they included provisions, including the ones listed earlier, to account for this. A government, in the 21st Century, could not function is made as small as Con is advocating, and, surely, being the pragmatists they were, the Founding Fathers would recognize this. Moving on to Con's argument, he states that, essentially, the Tenth Amendment exists. Unfortunately, he never weighs the Tenth Amendment with the other provisions in the Constitution; indeed, the Tenth Amendment is widely perceived as unnecessary, since it is implied that if a power is not granted to the government, it does not have it. However, using the clauses I mentioned earlier, none of the programs mentioned by Con betray this Amendment, as seen through various lower-court challenges. Con's characterization of judicial review is, plainly, wrong. Judicial review is the concept, enshrined since Marbury v. Madison, that the judiciary, up to the Supreme Court, has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. More importantly, Con never gives us any framework or real arguments to weigh; he merely asserts his opinion on the matter. I hope to see more substantive arguments next round.