The Framers deliberately designed the Constitution as a limiting document. They were wary of the a strong Federal Government infringing on States Rights and individual liberty. Several States demanded, as a condition of Constitutional ratification, additional guarantees of individual Rights and an acknowledgement that those Right did not emanate from the Government, but were rather natural Rights of Man. This guarantee is known as the Bill of Rights. The first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights refer to individual Rights, while numbers Nine and Ten refer to States Rights.
One of the dangers of a strong federal Government is that it imposes its will upon the People. In the past century or so, a strong Federal Government has moved our nation in a "progressive" direction. The people interested in a strong Federal Government are in favor of more social programs, more Federal laws, etc. The stronger Federal Government fits and advances their political political philosophy. Those of us who are of a more conservative bent decry the intrusiveness of the Nanny State.
Despite the vitriol of some, I have enjoyed the discussions on this post and over at EOB's site. I find the whole concept fascinating.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a wave of social conservationism and fiscal conservatism takes over the nation. The years of over spending and borrowing drives the voters to elect a preponderance of cost cutters to our Nation's Capital. For a decade the tide of Congress and the courts turns sharply Right on the political spectrum. What if there is a law passed that any woman on welfare who becomes pregnant while on the dole is subject to forced sterilization and the father is to be castrated? Would a doctor have the moral right to refuse such a law? Perhaps all females on food stamps are directed to take Plan B after every sexual encounter, subject to routine pelvic exams.. Would a pharmacist have the right to refuse to fill the prescription? Would we then argue that if he is unwilling to fill a legal prescription for a legal product he should not be a pharmacist?
What if the NTSA determined that smaller lighter cars are the cause of increased highway fatalities and the Feds mandated we driver larger heavier cars? Perhaps the Energy Department decides spending tax dollars on risky green energy products is unsound financially and we would get more energy by opening up all corners of the nation to drilling and fracking and mining. Is an intrusive EPA then so welcome? What if the Federal Government encouraged massive strip mining to reduce electric power costs? How about that strong Federal Government?
If the Government can force you to buy insurance for your physical health, haw far away is forcing you to buy a Bible or Koran for your metaphysical and spiritual health?
What if a strong Federal Government decided to round up anyone who did not toe the political line? What if a strong Federal Government decided to devise a "final solution" for the Jews, for homosexuals or Communists?
You see, a strong Federal Government can be a danger to us all. Only through trying to follow original intent are our freedoms protected.