Since the word size is a synonym for substance my claim was grammatically in error. Grammatical error aside our Constitution was written for the purpose of limiting the size of our government. Unless you can prove that our Constitution is not the basis of Classical Liberalism there is no argument.
I'm sorry, my friend, but that assertion is utter nonsense. The Constitution was not "written for the purpose of limiting the size of our government." Not in any way, shape, or form. It was to establish a government. That was its purpose. Period. That it divided the aspects of government between elements and levels of government is not a "limitation" but a structure. I know you love the rubric "Classical Liberalism" but it is not suitable for every idiosyncratic belief of yours.
Second, "size" and "substance" are not synonyms. Not in this context, nor virtually any.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "Unless you can prove that our Constitution is not the basis of Classical Liberalism there is no argument." I simply cannot parse your sentence or grok its meaning.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich