Eleanor Finch
Liberals and conservatives have differing views on the US Constitution, with liberals accusing conservatives of having a fetish for the document. This is due to the conservative belief in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which liberals argue is used to limit social progress and maintain the status quo of wealthy, white elites. Liberals view the Constitution as a living document that should be interpreted in light of changing social norms and values, while conservatives emphasize originalism, or interpreting the Constitution with its original public meaning, which affords more protections for economic liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Conservatives see the Constitution as a necessary constraint on government power, while liberals see it as an obstacle to enacting progressive policies. These differing interpretations have led to accusations of fetishism and worship of the Constitution by conservatives.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Liberals believe conservatives have a "fetish" for the Constitution | Liberals believe that the Constitution limits the good that can be done through Congress |
| Conservatives see the Constitution as a constraint on human selfishness and limited nature | Liberals believe the government is capable of perfecting society |
| Liberals view the Constitution as an obstacle to ending injustice | Conservatives see the Constitution as a limit on government power |
| Liberals view the Constitution as a living, breathing document subject to interpretation | Conservatives believe in originalism, interpreting the Constitution with its original public meaning |
| Liberals believe the Constitution was written in open-ended language to invite interpretation as social norms and values change | Conservatives seek to conserve the liberal principles of the Founding |
| Liberals accuse conservatives of using the Constitution to keep working people from political and economic power | Conservatives accuse liberals of misunderstanding the Constitution |
| Liberals believe the Constitution was designed to limit democracy and maintain the supremacy of wealthy white elites | Conservatives believe the Constitution abolished property requirements for holding public office |
| Liberals believe the Constitution was used to justify oppression and punish people of color and the poor | Conservatives believe the Constitution was the first free government of the modern world |
| Liberals are less interested in amending the Constitution, focusing instead on building grassroots support and persuading the Supreme Court | Conservatives are more populist and have more enthusiasm for constitutional amendments |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
$14.99 $16.99
What You'll Learn
- Liberals believe the Constitution limits the good they can do through Congress
- Conservatives see the Constitution as a constraint on human selfishness
- Liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, subject to interpretation
- Conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpreted with original public meaning
- Liberals accuse conservatives of fetishising the Constitution
Liberals believe the Constitution limits the good they can do through Congress
Liberals and conservatives have differing views on the US Constitution. While conservatives view the Constitution as a necessary constraint on inherently selfish and limited human beings, liberals believe that it limits the good they can do through Congress.
Liberals believe that the Constitution was written in open-ended language, allowing for interpretation as social norms and values change over time. They see the government as capable of perfecting society and view the Constitution as an obstacle to achieving that goal. They argue that the Constitution was explicitly designed as an anti-democratic document, meant to protect the wealthy few from the democratic aspirations of working people, and that it has been used historically to oppress and punish dissidents, people of colour, and the poor.
Conservatives, on the other hand, wave pocket Constitutions as a symbol of their indignation that the principle of limited government in the US has been disrespected, endangering their freedom. They see the government as having grown beyond the boundaries set by the people and believe that the power of the federal government should only be increased by the people's consent through the proper amendment process.
While liberals accuse conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution, conservatives counter that liberals want to render its words meaningless by treating it as a living, breathing" document subject to changing interpretations. This interpretation, according to conservatives, has allowed the federal government to overreach and expand its power.
The debate between liberals and conservatives over the Constitution reflects their differing views on the role of government and the interpretation of the document's original intent.
Founding Fathers' Vision: Preventing Tyranny in America
You may want to see also
Conservatives see the Constitution as a constraint on human selfishness
Liberals have accused conservatives of worshipping the Constitution, with some claiming that conservatives have a "fetish" for the document. This accusation stems from the belief that conservatives view the Constitution as a sacred text that should be strictly adhered to, often waving pocket Constitutions as a symbol of their commitment to its principles.
Conservatives see the Constitution as a necessary constraint on inherently selfish and limited human beings. They believe that the Constitution limits the power of the government and protects the freedoms of the people. In their view, the government has grown beyond the boundaries set by the Constitution and no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed. This indignation towards the expansion of government power is a fundamental aspect of conservative ideology.
The conservative interpretation of the Constitution, known as originalism, seeks to preserve the original legal content of the document. Originalists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted with its original public meaning, which affords protections for economic liberty, property rights, and gun rights. They believe that any changes to the Constitution should be made through the proper amendment process, with the consent of the people, rather than through judicial interpretation or executive action.
However, it is important to note that the conservative adherence to originalism is not always consistent. While they emphasize the importance of adhering to the original intent of the Constitution, they also selectively interpret certain provisions to justify their policy goals. For example, they may use the Commerce Clause to argue for limited government intervention in areas such as liberal policies.
In contrast, liberals view the Constitution as a living, breathing document that should be interpreted in light of changing social norms and values. They believe that the open-ended language of the Constitution invites interpretation and allows for the expansion of fundamental rights. Liberals also tend to prioritize social welfare programs and government intervention to address societal issues, which can be seen as a constraint on individual freedom by conservatives.
Constitution Test: A Requirement for Grade 9 Entry?
You may want to see also
Liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, subject to interpretation
Liberals and conservatives have differing views on the US Constitution. Liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, subject to interpretation, while conservatives see it as a necessary constraint on human beings. Liberals believe that the Constitution was written in open-ended language, allowing for interpretation and change as social norms and values evolve. They see the government as capable of perfecting society and accuse conservatives of having a "fetish" for the Constitution.
The liberal view of the Constitution as a living document is reflected in their support for social welfare programs and the expansion of fundamental rights. They argue that the document's open-ended language allows for a changing interpretation over time. This interpretation, however, has been criticised by conservatives who believe that liberals are trying to render the Constitution's words meaningless.
Conservatives, on the other hand, adhere to originalism, which interprets the Constitution with its original public meaning, affording protections for economic liberty, property rights, and gun rights. They see the Constitution as a defence against an overreaching government, limiting its power and safeguarding individual freedoms.
The conservative interpretation of the Constitution aligns with their belief in conserving the traditionally liberal principles of self-government, ordered liberty, and equality under the law. They argue that any expansion of federal power should only be done through the proper amendment process and with the consent of the people.
The differing views on the Constitution reflect a deeper divide between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to favour a more activist government that can address societal issues and promote equality, while conservatives emphasise limited government and individual freedoms, seeking to preserve the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers.
Words Count: California Constitution's Lengthy Text
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpreted with original public meaning
Liberals accuse conservatives of worshipping the Constitution because they see it as an obstacle to the nation's brightest decreeing the end of injustice in America. Liberals believe that the government is capable of perfecting society, while conservatives see the Constitution as a necessary constraint on inherently selfish and limited human beings. The Constitution limits the power of Congress, and thus limits the good that liberals can do through it.
Conservatives believe that the power of the federal government should only be increased by the people's consent through the proper channel of the amendment process. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted with its original public meaning, a view known as "originalism" or "textualism". Originalism is the theory that the meaning of the Constitution should be derived from what the text meant to the people who ratified it. Textualism focuses on the plain meaning of the text, considering the context in which the terms appear and how they would have been understood by people at the time of ratification. Originalists and textualists believe that the Constitution's text had an "objectively identifiable" or public meaning at the time of its founding that has not changed over time.
Originalism is a controversial theory. Critics argue that it leads to politically conservative results, for example, in cases where obviously guilty criminals are released because of a technicality. However, originalism is a theory focused on process, not substance, and it can lead to "liberal" results. For example, Justice Neil Gorsuch has written originalist rulings that protect the rights of criminal defendants and immigrants.
While conservatives believe that the Constitution should be interpreted with its original public meaning, they do not believe that it was perfect in 1787 or that the Founders were demigods. They believe that the Constitution is a necessary constraint on government power, which has long overstepped the boundaries set by the people.
The Supreme Court: Constitution's Supremacy Clause Explained
You may want to see also
Liberals accuse conservatives of fetishising the Constitution
Liberals argue that the Constitution was written in open-ended language to invite interpretation as social norms and values change. They believe that a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is not feasible because the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated modern issues. For example, liberals might argue that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit deporting liberals to Antarctica, as one satirical article points out.
Conservatives, on the other hand, wave pocket Constitutions as a symbol of their indignation towards what they see as the federal government's overreach and disrespect for the principle of limited government. They believe that the federal government's power should only be increased by the people's consent through the proper amendment process. Conservatives see the Constitution as a necessary constraint on inherently selfish and limited human beings.
While liberals accuse conservatives of fetishising the Constitution, both sides accuse the other of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the document and distorting its democratic character. The Constitution has been used by both sides in their political rhetoric, and it remains a divisive issue between liberals and conservatives in the United States.
Constitution Adoption: Factors Behind the United States' Birth
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Liberals accuse conservatives of worshipping the Constitution because they believe conservatives use it as a tool to limit the power of the federal government and prevent progressive change. Liberals see the government as capable of perfecting society, while conservatives view the Constitution as a constraint on human selfishness and a protection of individual rights and liberties.
Conservatives generally view the Constitution as a fixed and sacred document, seeking to preserve the original intent and principles of the Founding Fathers. They emphasize the importance of a limited government and believe that any expansion of federal power should only occur through the proper amendment process.
Liberals tend to see the Constitution as a living, breathing document that should be interpreted in light of changing social norms and values. They argue that the open-ended language of the Constitution invites interpretation to accommodate social and political progress. Liberals also believe that the Constitution was written in cryptic language, which requires interpretation by legal experts.
The differing views on the Constitution have significant implications for policy and law. Conservatives tend to push for constitutional amendments that align with their principles, such as proposals to repeal the federal income tax or limit federal power. Liberals, on the other hand, may focus more on judicial interpretation and expanding the understanding of fundamental rights through social welfare programs. These contrasting approaches shape the political landscape and the direction of the country.
