Sure it does by restricting our government to a very few enumerated powers.
Sure it does by restricting our government to a very few enumerated powers.
Sure it does by restricting our government to a very few enumerated powers.
The utter lack of understanding in the OP might be the most damning argument against letting people vote for their government that I have ever seen.
Sure it does by restricting our government to very few enumerated power.
Depends on your definition of Liberalism, the constitution is based on the fundamental principals of Liberalism from the age of enlightenment.
Do you even know what a classical liberal is?
The utter lack of understanding in the OP might be the most damning argument against letting people vote for their government that I have ever seen.
You could at least try and sound like you're attempting to make a coherent point.
are you saying that the Constitution does not in effect make liberalism illegal thanks to the enumerated powers?
No, the constitution does not make any idea illegal. Do you understand now?
why do you say that given that the whole idea of the Constitution was to make big liberal govt illegal?
ENTIRE GOVERNMENT were unconstitutional (which it is not), that would in no way, shape or form make it illegal to believe in liberal policies.
Nothing in our constitution forbids abortion, welfare, gay marriage, or any other policies our government has on the books -
I certainly think that the majority of the founders would be downright ashamed of us if they were around to discover the Patriot Act, NSA, and the fact that the Land of the Free has the largest prison population in the world.
First off, an -ism and a governmental body are not the same thing. Even if our big government, not a law or two the Supreme Court hasn't had time to strike down, but the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT were unconstitutional (which it is not), that would in no way, shape or form make it illegal to believe in liberal policies.
Nothing in our constitution forbids abortion, welfare, gay marriage, or any other policies our government has on the books - not on a noteworthy scale, at any rate. It's quite likely that there's an unconstitutional law here or there at the state or local level that just hasn't come to anyone's attention. There's one law in one of the states that forbids women from knitting while fishing, so that's definitely definitely discrimination on the basis of one's sex. But for the most part, our government isn't against the laws of our government.
Whether or not our government is in a form that the founders wanted is an entirely different story. Hell, a lot of them didn't even like the end result of what we signed into law in 1776 & they had to go back to the drawing board. I certainly think that the majority of the founders would be downright ashamed of us if they were around to discover the Patriot Act, NSA, and the fact that the Land of the Free has the largest prison population in the world. But in law, wording is all that matters; the intent doesn't have to reflect the views of long-dead legislators that didn't even agree with each other when they were alive. Jefferson even disagreed with himself, given that he flopped on the issue of the federal government only being able to do exactly what the constitution allowed it when he made the Louisiana Purchase.
In summary, no. Our government, which is the end result of centuries of bipartisan legislation under the limitations set forth in our constitution & enforced by the US Supreme Court & various lower courts is not unconstitutional. It is troublingly large, particularly in terms of the military, but it is neither liberal nor unconstitutional. And even if it WERE both liberal and unconstitutional, the very political philosophy of liberalism would not be unconstitutional.
when we talk today we use today's definitions. Do you understand? You cant really use the word's definition from a certain time in history and expect listeners to know what you are talking about.
Fair enough, I'm just not a fan of how the term Liberalism has been corrupted.
sure but it has nothing to do with OP which is about whether Constitution makes liberalism( ie big govt) illegal. Do you understand?
News flash there home-boy, the conservatives have been BIG GOVERNMENT for decades.
So in "conservatism" illegal too?
Cause I'd be fine with that.
You know he's just ****ing with us, right?