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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


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: 8068
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 # 19.

#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  


#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  


#15. To: nolu chan (#14) (Edited)

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. -- nolu, citing Barnett ---

Barnett would agree that many 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.

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

Gee, it looks like you didn't read the last part of my reply, you idiot.

Or, is their something wrong with you, mentality, besides your idiocy?

Really, seek help.

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-03   12:35:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tpaine (#15)

Barnett agreed it is settled law with the precedent going back to 1833 and with every opinion of every Federal court since 1833 agreeing that the BoR does not apply to the States, then or now. Deal with it.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-03   14:07:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 19.

#20. To: nolu chan (#19)

Barnett agreed it is settled law with the precedent going back to 1833 and with every opinion of every Federal court since 1833 agreeing that the BoR does not apply to the States, then or now.

Deal with it.

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

Thus your attempt to cite Barnett fails, as he does not agree with you anti-constitutionalists.

Mocking you clowns is how I deal with it.

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-03 15:46:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

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