What was the point in setting up a limited federal government, if these same states could put anything they wanted in their own constitutions.
Things that can violate our right to life, liberty and property?
When they created this constitution, was there any thought to limit the powers of the states?
You call yourself “limitgov”, you tell us.
Doesn’t your question belong in your own, [and current]10th Amendment thread, or am I missing something?
Regards, onebornfree
You will probably have to ask the signers of the constitution.
The Federal Government is a pact between the states. It was the states that wanted it to be limited. Of course they did not limit themselves in the process.
i just want someone to tell me:
the states constitution is not valid if it violates someone’s life, liberty and property because “x,y and z…”
Sorry, it’s just a stupid piece of paper.
well that stupid piece of paper has allowed states to intrude on people’s liberty and property.
u need to show that piece of paper a little more respect…
States don’t have rights they have powers.
What will the piece of paper do to me if I don’t show it respect?
kick you in the nuts and take your money.
What about paper contracts people sign? Could you please distinguish what makes the Constitution stupid vis a vis “regular” contracts?
Thanks 
The constitution is a contract between the states. If they no longer wish to abide by some clause, then it is for all purposes void.
This is one of my favourite topics.It’s also one of the important arguments against Minarchism/Constitutionalism.
Constitutionalism is a form of social contract theory so those criticism’s apply to it.
Well I’m not expert on American history not being british and all but I’ll give it a try.
**Not binding.**There’s many theories of contracts.Most Libertarians accept the title transfer theory expounded by Rothbard and others.In this all participants must sign the contract.In terms of the constitution , of those it was held to be binding on all the participants DID NOT SIGN.
Outdated.It’s generally accepted contracts only apply to those living who signed the contract unless there was a contract signed when living that still applies during death e.g. inheritance etc. The constitution -assuming it was signed by all involved for arguments sake - would only apply to the living at the time, in which case once all involved were death it means nothing. See Lysander spooner Constitution of no authority
3.Represents centralization of government. The Anti-federalists argued this and a recent libertarian poster to Lew rockwell.com has said the same.
4.Not accepted or wanted by everyone.The Anti Federalists vehemently opposed the constitution seeing it as a centralization of power and worrying that the president position would become something akin to a monarchy.One poster argues they were correct.
5. **The constitution wasn’t that great anyway.**The government had less powers before the constitution than it did after.Alexander hamilton wanted the central government to have lots of power and while he didn’t get all he wanted in the constitution he got enough to be satisfied.
See untold truths about the american revolution
Also see
Some argue Constitutionalism actually undermines liberty
I know this all might seem like hersy when you first read it but it’s where reason,history and libertarian principles lead.
This is an odd collection of sentences. Why would I respect a piece of paper that has done such things? Of course, though, it hasn’t. Governments do lots of unconstitutional things, so how exactly can it be claimed that the particular evil things in the constitution would not have been done had they not been there?