Liberals, Constitution, And Change: A Complex Relationship

There is a perception that liberals want to get rid of the Constitution. This is due to their belief that the government is capable of perfecting society, and the Constitution limits what good they can do through Congress. Liberals have accused conservatives of having a fetish for the Constitution, while conservatives believe that liberals have a fundamental misunderstanding of why they value the document. Conservatives see the Constitution as a necessary constraint on human beings, while liberals see it as an obstacle to ending injustice in America. Some liberals have found ways to work around the Constitution, such as by stretching the interpretation of interstate commerce. However, it is important to note that liberals do not explicitly state that they want to get rid of the Constitution, and their true intentions are a matter of interpretation.

Explore related products

The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government

$24.63 $29

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty

$5.38 $6.99

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions

$12.9 $19.99

How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution

$5.38 $9

American Government 101: From the Continental Congress to the Iowa Caucus, Everything You Need to Know About US Politics (Adams 101 Series)

$10.99 $16.99

Crapitalism: Liberals Who Make Millions Swiping Your Tax Dollars

$11.99 $26

Liberals believe the government can perfect society, but the Constitution limits this

Liberals and conservatives have differing views on the role of the government and the Constitution. Liberals believe that the government is capable of perfecting society or, at the very least, bringing it close to perfection. They see the government as a tool to eradicate injustice in America. However, the Constitution limits the power of Congress and the federal government, acting as an obstacle to liberals' ambitions.

The Constitution grants Congress a finite list of enumerated powers, and any increase in federal power requires the consent of the people through the amendment process. This limited government was designed by Americans who deeply distrust unrestrained central authority, dating back to 1787. The Constitution's checks and balances were intended to prevent the government from acting without the people's consent, as specified in Article I, Section 8.

Liberals have been accused of having an "inherent animus" towards the Constitution due to its constraints on their ability to pass progressive policies. They have accused conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution, suggesting that conservatives overly romanticize the document and the Founders' intentions. However, conservatives argue that their support for the Constitution is rooted in the belief that government power should only be expanded through the proper amendment process and with the people's consent.

The tension between liberals and conservatives regarding the role of the government and the interpretation of the Constitution is a long-standing debate in American politics. Liberals seek to address societal issues and achieve their version of a just society, while conservatives emphasize the limitations on government power to preserve individual freedoms.

While some on the left, such as political commentator Elie Mystal, have expressed more radical views, suggesting the need to "smash" parts of the Constitution that are holding the country back, the general liberal sentiment leans towards utilizing the government to achieve societal progress within the constraints of the constitutional framework, albeit with some creative interpretations of interstate commerce and the general welfare clause to expand federal power.

Liberals accuse conservatives of having a fetish for the Constitution

Liberals accuse conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution, exposing their fundamental misunderstanding of why conservatives have rallied around the document. This accusation stems from the belief that conservatives view the Constitution as a necessary constraint on inherently selfish and limited human beings, while liberals see it as an obstacle to progress and social justice. Liberals argue that the government is capable of perfecting society or, at the very least, reducing injustice. They believe that the Constitution limits the positive impact that can be made through Congress.

Conservatives, on the other hand, see the Constitution as a safeguard against the overreach of government power and a protection of individual liberty. They argue that the federal government should only expand its power with the consent of the people through the proper amendment process. This view is often associated with a rejection of the liberal reconfigurations of politics, law, and morality over the last several decades. Some conservatives take a traditionalist perspective, blaming the pursuit of rights and equality for the growth of government post-New Deal, which they see as a threat to American political and cultural traditions and human dignity.

The conservative embrace of the Constitution is also influenced by their interpretation of American constitutionalism. Some believe that the American constitutional order, with its ties to radical Enlightenment liberalism, was designed to guarantee policy and moral outcomes they deplore. As a result, they may reject the framers' Constitution and instead adopt progressive tools to achieve their desired ends. However, it's important to note that not all conservatives share the same beliefs, and there are varying schools of thought within conservatism.

The debate over the Constitution reflects a deeper ideological divide between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to favour government intervention to address societal issues, while conservatives prioritize limited government and individual liberty. The Constitution, with its constraints on government power, becomes a focal point of contention between these opposing viewpoints.

While liberals may accuse conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution, it's important to recognize that both sides have valid concerns and perspectives. The Constitution, as a foundational document, is open to varying interpretations, and the ongoing dialogue and debate between liberals and conservatives shape the evolving understanding and application of its principles.

Conservatives see the Constitution as a constraint on selfish humans

While liberals have accused conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution, the latter's affinity for the document is rooted in the belief that it serves as a necessary check against the inherent selfishness and limitations of human beings. This view stands in contrast to the liberal perspective, which sees the Constitution as an impediment to their vision of a just America.

The conservative interpretation of the Constitution reflects a deep-seated wariness of an unrestrained central government, a sentiment that has resonated with Americans both historically and in the present day. The Constitution, crafted by the nation's founders, was designed to establish a federal government with limited powers, operating within a defined scope of national affairs. Any expansion of federal authority, according to conservatives, should only occur through the proper amendment process, with the consent of the people.

This conservative stance is underpinned by the recognition that the Constitution serves as a safeguard against the potential excesses of government power. It ensures that Congress's powers are finite and enumerated, preventing the imposition of certain liberal initiatives, such as workplace diversity requirements or cap-and-trade policies. Conservatives view this limitation on governmental reach as essential for preserving individual liberties and protecting citizens from overreach.

However, it is important to note that conservatives do not idolize the Constitution as a flawless document. They acknowledge that the founders did not consider it perfect, nor did they view themselves as infallible. Nonetheless, conservatives uphold the principles of limited government and the amendment process as crucial safeguards against the inherent flaws and limitations of human nature.

In contrast, liberals tend to view the Constitution as an obstacle to their aspirations for societal improvement. They believe that government intervention is a potent force for positive change and that the Constitution's constraints on governmental power hinder their ability to address societal issues. This divergence in perspectives underscores the fundamental ideological differences between conservatives and liberals regarding the role of government and the interpretation of the Constitution.

Explore related products

UNDERMINING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: How the Communist Manifesto of 1848 Blueprints the Actions of the Democratic Party and President Obama

$2.99 $3.49

Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism

$11.49 $27

The Liturgy of Politics: Spiritual Formation for the Sake of Our Neighbor

$9.99 $19.99

A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China's Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future (The Princeton-China Series)

$16.17 $29.95

Dismantling America: and other controversial essays

$29.19 $35

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)

$11.88 $21.99

Liberals believe the Constitution is an obstacle to ending injustice

Liberals and conservatives have differing views on the US Constitution. While conservatives see it as a necessary constraint on inherently selfish and limited human beings, liberals view it as an obstacle to ending injustice in the nation. This is because liberals believe that the government is capable of perfecting society, or at least coming close, and the Constitution limits the good they can do through Congress.

Liberals have accused conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution, and of treating it like a "'Cult' of the Constitution". They argue that the Constitution limits the power of Congress, preventing the implementation of liberal schemes such as enforcing workplace diversity requirements or cap-and-trade. Liberals have also found ways to work around the Constitution, such as by stretching the interpretation of "interstate commerce" to cover any action undertaken in the US.

The post-liberal right, on the other hand, believes that the left poses an existential threat to American society and must be stopped through the harsh use of state power. They see the rise of left-wing social theory and its spread through elite spaces as a powerful weapon used to take down Trump. They have set out to replicate it, with Chris Rufo, a Manhattan Institute fellow and influential Trump adviser, writing, "The Right’s longstanding proposal—to ‘cancel cancel culture’—might make for a good slogan, but it is not sufficient as a governing philosophy”.

Some liberals, such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have shown a disregard for the Constitution, as seen in her response to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare. When asked where in the Constitution Congress is granted the power to force people to buy health insurance, Pelosi asked, "Are you serious?". This incident highlights the disconnect between liberals and conservatives regarding their views on the role and importance of the Constitution.

Liberals point to the general welfare clause when confronted about constitutionality

The General Welfare Clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, statutes, and charters, allowing the governing body to enact laws that promote the general welfare of the people. The clause is sometimes referred to as the "public welfare." The interpretation and application of this clause have been a subject of debate, with some arguing that it grants the federal government independent spending power, while others contend that it restricts taxing power.

In the United States Constitution, the General Welfare Clause is mentioned twice: in the Preamble and the Taxing and Spending Clause. The interpretation of this clause has been a source of controversy, with two primary authors of The Federalist essays, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, offering conflicting interpretations. Madison argued for a “narrow” construction of the clause, contending that the powers of taxation and appropriation should be seen as instrumental to the government's remaining powers. On the other hand, Hamilton adopted a broader interpretation, asserting that the clause confers a separate power to the federal government.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on this debate, with Justice Joseph Story's interpretation holding sway. The Court has held that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power but a qualification on the taxing power. This means that the federal government has the power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest but does not have unlimited authority to enact any legislation in the name of "general welfare."

Liberals often point to the General Welfare Clause when confronted with questions about the constitutionality of their policies. They argue that the clause gives the federal government the flexibility to interpret and address the evolving needs of the people. This interpretation aligns with the liberal ideology of an active government that promotes the welfare of its citizens. However, critics argue that this interpretation risks expanding federal power beyond what was originally intended by the Constitution's framers.

In conclusion, the General Welfare Clause remains a contentious aspect of the U.S. Constitution, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on its scope and application. While liberals see it as a tool to advance their policy agenda, conservatives worry about the potential for government overreach. The ongoing debate underscores the complexity of interpreting constitutional clauses and the enduring relevance of the document's original intent.

Frequently asked questions