The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

kaz

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2010
78,025
22,328
2,190
Kazmania
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.
 
Last edited:
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,

but later coming to their senses,

they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.
 
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,

but later coming to their senses,

they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.

Liberals like to portray the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist fight as between liberals and libertarians. Actually the Federalists were very much like libertarians, wanting government strictly limited to enumerated powers, and the anti-Federalists were almost anarchist, particularly at the Federal level. They wanted them to have virtually no power.

Hamilton in fact thought that the Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but even possibly dangerous. Do you know why?
 
The Founders did not envision a government based on kaz's libertarian model.

End of discussion. Let's move on.

And the Federalists were nothing like libertarians.

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.
 
Last edited:
The Founders did not envision a government based on kaz's libertarian model.

For example...

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.

Really?

Alexander Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
 
The Founders did not envision a government based on kaz's libertarian model.

For example...

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.

Really?

Alexander Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Here you are, envisioning getting done by Bodecea, and you cannot even read the meaning of your quote above correctly.

Read it out loud to yourself.

I can see your boyfriend broke up with you and you are running around feeling sorry for yourself. :lol:
 
Alexander Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

You bring up an interesting point, do think time has proven Hamilton right or wrong?
 
"The only people who understand and support the Constitution are minarchist libertarians. Everybody else is just dumb."

Yawn.
 
Our founding fathers wanted a Government that does what needs to be done and does what makes sense

If they didn't, they were a bunch of fucking assholes
 
Alexander Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

You bring up an interesting point, do think time has proven Hamilton right or wrong?

Certainly what he pointed out happened, so he was right in that regard. I think the question is what would we have done without the bill of rights. I have a hard time believing that those who wanted government and twisted the Constitution to justify it would have had a harder time if it weren't there. So I think in that sense it's a wash.
 
"The only people who understand and support the Constitution are minarchist libertarians. Everybody else is just dumb."

Yawn.

Actually I only said that anarchists do what they do because they are dumb, the rest do it because it's their agenda. I guess you only read the one you cared about and rather than specifying you said "everyone."
 
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.

And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.

They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.

They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.

That's what you folks absolutely do not get.
 
You can't even quote it right: unwomans, not unwoman's.

You cannot use quotes correctly, can you?

That explains much.

:wtf:

So many times I've wanted to ask you to learn to use the quote function because it gets to be so hard to reply to your posts...

:lol:
 
"The only people who understand and support the Constitution are minarchist libertarians. Everybody else is just dumb."

Yawn.

Actually I only said that anarchists do what they do because they are dumb, the rest do it because it's their agenda. I guess you only read the one you cared about and rather than specifying you said "everyone."

Oh, my mistake. "Everybody else is evil or dumb."

Yawn.

Tell us again how much the Constitution is a "solution" when we have 200 years showing that, in fact, it's not.
 
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.

And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.

They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.

They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.

That's what you folks absolutely do not get.

I get it fine, and I addressed your points.
 
"The only people who understand and support the Constitution are minarchist libertarians. Everybody else is just dumb."

Yawn.

Actually I only said that anarchists do what they do because they are dumb, the rest do it because it's their agenda. I guess you only read the one you cared about and rather than specifying you said "everyone."

Oh, my mistake. "Everybody else is evil or dumb."

Yawn.

Tell us again how much the Constitution is a "solution" when we have 200 years showing that, in fact, it's not.

Please don't put quotes around what I did not say. Quotes means that you are using my words as I wrote them. You are saying your view of what I said, not what I said. You don't quote when you are doing that.

kaz said:
As for anarchists, funny: Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Like the liberals, you're agreeing with my depiction. I did not say you were "dumb" I said you were "simple minded and naive." When you actually ever present an actual argument on anarchism, I may change my mind. You or any other anarchists I've ever discussed it with.
 
Last edited:
Actually I only said that anarchists do what they do because they are dumb, the rest do it because it's their agenda. I guess you only read the one you cared about and rather than specifying you said "everyone."

Oh, my mistake. "Everybody else is evil or dumb."

Yawn.

Tell us again how much the Constitution is a "solution" when we have 200 years showing that, in fact, it's not.

Please don't put quotes around what I did not say. Quotes means that you are using my words as I wrote them. You are saying your view of what I said, not what I said. You don't quote when you are doing that.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” - Lysander Spooner

Did I get it right that time?
 

Forum List

Back
Top