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

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes

"Greg Gutfeld Cooks Jessica Tarlov and Liberal Media in Brilliant Take on Trump's First Day"

"They Gave Trump the Center, and He Took It"

French doors

America THEN and NOW in 65 FASCINATING Photos

"CNN pundit Scott Jennings goes absolutely nuclear on Biden’s ‘farce’ of a farewell speech — and he’s not alone"


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: 8545
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 # 23.

#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  


#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  


#21. To: tpaine (#20)

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

Damn, if the settled view that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States was a cause of the Civil War, the North must have lost. The BoR did not apply to the States when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the still standing precedent in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). That precedent stood throught the Civil War and it stands today.

See, for example:

Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 3:15-cv-0335-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Mar 30, 2016)

Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-03   23:36:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu chan (#21)

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.

Damn, if the settled view that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States was a cause of the Civil War, the North must have lost.

It was ONE of the causes, you idiot.

The BoR did not apply to the States when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the still standing precedent in Barron v. Baltimore,

That was the 'settled opinion', but it was wrong, and in any case, even 'settled' opinions do not change our Constitution.

Our right to bear arms has never been subject to banns by ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-04   0:28:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tpaine (#22)

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

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 3:15-cv-0335-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Mar 30, 2016)

Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment.

Your absurd claim on gun rights shows your ignorance. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) held that the Fourteenth Amendment made "the right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."

nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-07   20:33:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 23.

#24. To: nolu chan (#23)

Damn, if the settled view that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States was a cause of the Civil War, the North must have lost.

It was ONE of the causes, you idiot.

The BoR did not apply to the States when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the still standing precedent in Barron v. Baltimore,

That was the 'settled opinion', but it was wrong, and in any case, even 'settled' opinions do not change our Constitution.

Our right to bear arms has never been subject to banns by ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now. ---- The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part: ---,- No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ----- It does not apply the BoR to the States,

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-07 21:17:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.

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