It all started to die the moment the first US congress was sworn in.

Every organization will eventually be taken over by people who serve the organization for it’s own sake rather than the organizations mission. Not even governments are immune to this.

Once that happens to a government, it doesn’t matter what kind of constitution you have, or how you try to limit the power of the government. The people who serve the government for the government’s sake will see any constitution, any limits on their power not as a sacred obligation to be upheld, but as an obstacle to be overcome.

Ultimately in the long run, the only way truly limited government can be preserved is to periodically burn it to the ground* and start over from scratch.

Even that would require that a strong majority of the population supports the idea of limited government, and that such support is preserved from generation to generation.

*This is meant metaphorically, not literally. I am not advocating violent revolution.

It died shortly after “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That one died along with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Your factually erroneous premises pave the way for your illiberal prescription.

Add in the current movement, led by Facebook and Google, to deplatform anyone who disagrees with far-left politics, and you get a serious threat to freedom of political speech anywhere in the world. So any relaxation of antitrust rules that allows those six giants to expand their control must be resisted.

The newspaper in this case may or may not be an example. But if one of the Big 6 owns it, then by all means keep the restriction.