>For example, even under a strict originalist interpretation, the Commerce Clause would allow Congress to take actions that abridge the freedom of speech, relig

>For example, even under a strict originalist interpretation, the Commerce Clause would allow Congress to take actions that abridge the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. >The Constitution does not establish a process for the federal government to investigate, detain, try, and punish people for violating its laws, though it is clear that it must have those powers. These are great examples, and I think they cut straight to the heart of the issue. Would the ideal solution be to rewrite the Constitution as a truthful, detailed, and exhaustive list of the powers the government does have, or would it be best to list only restrictions to the government's power? Or is a mix necessary, despite the inherent contradictions?