• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

James972 said:
Sure it does by restricting our government to a very few enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

Correctly answered. Here is some further documentation:

James Madison, Virginia Resolutions, 1798:“….That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in DUTY bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. …”

See also Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: American Patriot Party News Letters, Division of Power, Foundations of Freedom and Liberty, Works and Writings of John Locke, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Constitutional Debates, Constitution History, Declaration of Independence, Of

(Edmund) Pendleton: "...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square (Washington DC - Federal legislative/ executive/ supreme court) being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a "Single Step Beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers". ..."


American Patriot Party
 
APP National said:
Correctly answered. Here is some further documentation:

James Madison, Virginia Resolutions, 1798:“….That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in DUTY bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. …”

See also Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: American Patriot Party News Letters, Division of Power, Foundations of Freedom and Liberty, Works and Writings of John Locke, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Constitutional Debates, Constitution History, Declaration of Independence, Of

(Edmund) Pendleton: "...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square (Washington DC - Federal legislative/ executive/ supreme court) being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a "Single Step Beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers". ..."


American Patriot Party
Click to expand...

The enumeration retrictions restrict conservative government, not liberal government.
 
Publius said:
What I wanted to say was that the Constitution doesn't promote liberalism (as soon as I posted my comment the word "promote" came to me). If it promoted liberalism would we even need a Bill of Rights? Our property can be seized by the federal gov. (4th amendment) and we can be taxed to an almost unlimited degree. The federal government can even control free trade between states under the Commerce Clause. Again, a strong federal government was created that limits liberalism and most certainly does not promote it.
Click to expand...
It depends on your point of view. Federalists believed we did not need our Ten simple Amendments, but for the obtuseness of the right wing.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you dispute that the tag "genius" should be applied to the founders ?
Click to expand...

I believe I should be grateful for the most excellent job they did at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme Law of the land. What is not covered by it and our Ten simple Amendments?
 
danielpalos said:
I believe I should be grateful for the most excellent job they did at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme Law of the land. What is not covered by it and our Ten simple Amendments?
Click to expand...

They just did a temporary job IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom