[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Is the Constitution Libertarian?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 1, 2016
Author: Irene Warren
Post Date: 2016-07-01 19:22:07 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 7042
Comments: 35

Is the Constitution Libertarian?

Irene Warren

In honor of the 221st Constitutional Day, guest speaker Randy Barnett gave the Annual B. Kenneth Simon Lecture at the Cato Institute in an effort to set the record straight about whether the Constitution is libertarian.

Randy Barnett, a professor of legal theory at Georgetown University Law Center, explained that the Constitution is a governing document which governs those who are in power and who govern others. However, he explained that the Constitution also defines the limit of powers on those who govern us.

“As it turns out, this is not an easy question to answer,” Barnett said. “There is a difference between constitutional interpretation and constitutional construction.”

“The original Constitution protected the rights of life, liberty and property against infringement by the federal government in two different ways: First, and foremost, Congress was not given a general legislative power, but only those legislative powers herein granted, referring to the powers that were specified in Article 1, Section 8,” Barnett said. “You don’t need the Tenth Amendment; just look at the first sentence of Article 1 which defines legislative powers and limits those powers herein granted. It is striking how these powers, the powers on the list, Article 1, Section 8, avoid expressively restricting the rightful exercise of liberty.”

Thus, Barnett explained that the first ten Amendments only restricted federal powers, but the states still retained their power to enslave some of their citizens. This, Barnett explained, “caused the original Constitution to be greatly flawed from a libertarian perspective.” However, he pointed out, “fortunately, it was amended, which made it far more libertarian.”

Barnett explained that modern libertarianism is based on five principles: • defense of self and others; • restitution; • first possession; • freedom of contract; and • private property. Nevertheless, he explained that the original Constitution was far from a libertarian base since it allowed the states power to enslave people.

According to Barnett, “there are only three powers on that list that might be construed as restricting the rightful exercise of liberty.” Thus, Barnett explained that the Necessary and Proper clause, the power of Congress to promote science and useful arts, and the power of taxation rate high on the list in restricting individual liberties. For example, Barnett explained that the Necessary and Proper clause gives Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper. Conversely, libertarians are divided about granting exclusive rights to some authors and inventors that might violate the rights of others through their writings and discoveries. Also, Barnett briefly explained that the power to tax can also pose a problem concerning liberties.

“I would just merely say that whether a general power to tax does or does not violate the pertaining rights of the people to their property, it is certainly a restriction of liberty on a different order than a direct tax: regulation or restriction on the property rights that we have.”

“Of course the Supreme Court has upheld countless federal laws restricting liberty, primarily under the powers of Congress to regulate commerce, with an open-ended reading of the Necessary and Improper clause, Barnett said. “Pretty much every Commerce clause case that has been used to restrict liberty has been done in combination with an over-broad reading of the Necessary and Proper clause; it’s done by not using the Commerce clause alone.”

Barnett explained that “the courts have upheld the power of Congress to spend tax revenues for purposes other than procuring its enumerated powers.” “With respect to federal power, the text of the original Constitution is far more libertarian than the retroactive Constitution enforced by the Supreme Court.”

Barnett explained that the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, but pointed out that it was “the Fourteenth Amendment that radically altered the federalism of the original Constitution.”

“For the first time,” Barnett explained, “Congress and the courts could invalidate any state laws that abridged the privileges of immunities of the citizens of the United States.” However, Barnett explained that we have more than the Constitution to ensure liberties now, because two years after the Constitution was enacted, the Bill of Rights was adopted onto the Constitution.

Barnett explained that the Bill of Rights gave American citizens express liberties; liberties that included freedom guarantees, such as Freedom of Speech, The Right to Bear Arms and The Right to Peaceably Assemble.

According to Barnett, “The Bill of Rights provided different procedural assurances that laws would be applied accurately and fairly to particular individuals.” Further, he added, “All are consistent today with libertarian philosophy.”

Barnett also indicated that he believed that “the United States Constitution is the most liberal document ever adopted into law.”

Irene Warren is an intern at the American Journalism Center

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.

#1. To: All (#0)

Barnett also indicated that he believed that “the United States Constitution is the most liberal document ever adopted into law.”

Must be a typo.-- I'm sure he really meant: ---

“The United States Constitution is the most libertarian document ever adopted into law.”

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-01   19:30:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine (#1) (Edited)

Barnett also indicated that he believed that “the United States Constitution is the most liberal document ever adopted into law.”

Must be a typo.-- I'm sure he really meant: ---

CLASSICAL
liberal

Adam
Smith

(( invisible ))
(( hand ))

GOD

Ten
Commandments

Thou
shall
not

lie
steal
murder
covet

worship
false
gods
religions
science

esp
Marxism
evolution

based
on
DIVINE
law
design

NOT
anarchy

man
made
law
politics

mobacracy

degenerate
libertarian

degenerate
liberal

same
thing

Make
America
straight
great
again

love
boris

ps

the
... blind
leading
the
... blind

BorisY  posted on  2016-07-01   19:48:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: BorisY (#2)

"Is the Constitution Libertarian?"

I think it's Presbyterian.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-07-01   20:04:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#3)

"Thus, Barnett explained that the first ten Amendments only restricted federal powers"

Bwahahahaha.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-07-01   20:21:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Roscoe, misterwhite, constitutional idiots (#5)

“The original Constitution protected the rights of life, liberty and property against infringement by the federal government ---

Thus, Barnett explained that the first ten Amendments only restricted federal powers, but the states still retained their power to enslave some of their citizens.

Bwahahaha,--- Roscoe

Maniacal laughter from roscoe, agreeing that States had the right to ignore individual rights. (and still do about guns, according to misterwhite)

He and misterwhite are anti-constitutional idiots.

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-02   10:53:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine, Roscoe, misterwhite (#9)

Maniacal laughter from roscoe, agreeing that States had the right to ignore individual rights. (and still do about guns, according to misterwhite)

He and misterwhite are anti-constitutional idiots.

Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Aspen Publishers, 2008, pg. 158, Section D, The Bill of Rights:

Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Barron v. Baltiore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

The people delegated certain powers to the Federal government, other powers to their State government, and retained the rest to themselves. The original Bill of Rights acted as a negative statement of restraint upon the Federal government. There was no grant of any new power therein.

Regarding the delegation of powers to the State governments, the people retained to themselves the power to effect such delegation. They had largely done so prior to the existence of the Constitution. They had largely adopted their own Bills of Rights prior to the Constitution. The Federal Bill of Rights was largely adapted from the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 12, 1776, which preceded the Virginia constitution of June 29, 1776, which followed the Virginia declaration of independence from Great Britain prefacing its constitution: "By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED."

The people of 1789 or 1791 did not delegate to the Federal government the power to dictate what the powers of their State government would or would not be. The BoR delegated no powers to the Federal government, then or now. There was no enforcement mechanism akin to the 14th Amendment.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-02   20:12:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#11)

Maniacal laughter from roscoe, agreeing that States had the right to ignore individual rights. (and still do about guns, according to misterwhite)

He and misterwhite are anti-constitutional idiots.

Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Aspen Publishers, 2008, pg. 158, Section D, The Bill of Rights: ---- Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Most people, yes, but roscoe, misterwhite, and YOU do not. ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST's.

In Barron v. Baltiore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Barnett would agree that many any people did NOT agree with the 'settled view', which was one of the causes of the civil war.

Your attempt to cite Barnett fails, as he does not side with you clowns on this issue. Barnett is a patriot.

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-03   11:39:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 13.

#14. To: tpaine, Roscoe, misterwhite (#13)

Most people, yes, but roscoe, misterwhite, and YOU do not. ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST's.

Gee, it look like you just called Randy Barnett a "GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST." He's the author of the quote.

Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Aspen Publishers, 2008, pg. 158, Section D, The Bill of Rights: ---- Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It's from his big ol' lawbook, one of those things you don't read.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-03 12:06:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com