Federal Programs are Unconstitutional

I would like to make a sincere apology to my opponent for my forfeiting the previous round. Simply put, I was busy with school work and lost track of time--nothing more, nothing less. I will not waste precious time and space commenting on my opponent's ad hominem attack that the accidental forfeiting shows weakness and a lack of credibility. I will leave it up to the judge to determine if that gives enough grounds to reward conduct points. I will proceed to give brief comments on my opponent's second round post before summarizing the entire round and show why the judge should proceed to award a ballot for the negation. Let's begin. My opponent's second round post starts with noting that while the government's responsibility is to provide for the common welfare, the people establish said welfare, and that the government should not take over the whole of the people's welfare. My opponent proceeds to state that the Framers never intended for such programs to exist. Again, my opponent is tied down to the notion that the Framers intended that the Constitution is out of the question and should be the only grounds for our government to run on. As previously mentioned, the Framers intended for the Constitution to be built upon through Article Five and never had the intention of the government just being the Constitution. It should also be noted that we, as citizens of the United States, elect the leaders and representatives of the federal programs and associations we often debate over, so we actually have control over how exactly they should be run. This can be seen in electing our Congressmen; candidates for Congress have a specific agenda and, when/if elected, get assigned to committees that help run our programs. Through electing our representatives, we ultimately have control not only over how our country is run, but how our programs are run as well. My opponent then proceeds to comment on Article Five, and that while it allows for the Constitution to be changed, there is no amendment that allows for such federal programs. This is a misunderstanding of the point I was attempting to advance. The point I was attempting to advance was that the Framers intended for the Constitution to simply be a building block on which our government can grow and prosper. Just because there is no amendment to allow for gay marriage does not mean gay marriage should not be encouraged in our society. Just because there is no amendment that allows for equal pay between men and women does not mean that there shouldn't be such equal pay. The government was never, ever meant to be tied down in such a way. Under both the preamble, which encourages the government to provide for citizens and for citizens to assist in running the programs and helping themselves, and Article Five, which encourages the growth of government beyond the Constitution, government programs are still constitutional. My opponent goes on to state that the Constitution is still important today, even though it is a founding document. I do not dispute this assertion. It is important that the people still have rights--we can all agree that people should have the right to free speech, among others. But it is rather clear that there needs to be some restrictions on this right. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, nor can you say lewd things in front of your high school class. These are okay and valid limitations. Under the original, unadulterated Constitution, there were no such restrictions. While we should to some degree keep in mind the Constitution, we also need to realize that it should and can be edited so our government does not become so restricted. My opponent states that I have, in essence, contradicted myself by outlining the process for amending the Constitution. However, this is again a misunderstanding. Not only does Article Five tell us to not be restricted by the original constitution, but it tells us that government must be able to grow and should not simply be restricted to one document, no matter the additions. The Framers intended for our government to grow and change, not simply be restricted to one document, no matter how many edits are made to it and no matter how many additions. My opponent ends this rebuttal by stating that we should keep fast to it to prevent the government from becoming too large, but he fails to cite why we should do this. Where exactly is the harm behind a "big" government? As mentioned before, the government's obligation is to ensure and provide for the common welfare. As long as the government does that principle obligation, where exactly is the harm? We see no word of this from my opponent, and this completely undermines his whole case. My opponent ends his second round post by stating that an alterative to the governmental programs is to privatize the programs to be more-in-line with the Founders' intentions. I will not comment on this, for one good reason: this is entirely irrelevant to the topic of the debate. The debate focuses on whether or not programs are constitutional; to propose an alterative like this is irrelevant and should not be weighed whatsoever. The judge must ignore this ending. In conclusion, the judge should issue a ballot in favor of the negation, Con, in this debate. I have demonstrated that the government's obligations is to provide for the common welfare in accordance with the Preamble, which the programs do and have the purpose of. I have demonstrated that it is illogical to be tied down to the constitution, and that as long as federal programs provide for the welfare of citizens, having a "big government" should not be a terrible concern. My opponent has not been able to satisfactorily prove that having a "big government" is bad, nor has he proved why the government should be tied down to the Constitution. My opponent has also shown several small, but relatively critical, misunderstandings about my own points, which in turn undermines his rebuttals. Simply put, my opponent has not been able to sufficiently prove why federal programs are unconstitutional, while I, the negation, have shown that federal programs do their job by serving the people, as outlined by the Preamble, and that the concept of constitutionality is flawed because the Founders never intended for the government to be tied down to a single document, as outlined by Article Five. The judge should place a firm ballot in favor of the negation.