If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?

Dear @james M
I beg your pardon but the Constitutional protections apply to ALL people regardless of statist or nonstatist beliefs.
We just can't IMPOSE those beliefs through public laws, but we are welcome to exercise them within private organizations that agree to like terms.

We can't be in the business of discriminating by creed,
or we open the door to denying protections to Christians and Constitutionalists as well!

Think of what you are saying here.

There is a DIFFERENCE between the Constitution barring the IMPOSITION of statist beliefs,
vs. denying equal protection and inclusion of PEOPLE or "THOSE" with statist beliefs.

I think what you mean @james M, and I agree,
that people like us with Constitutional beliefs in limited govt and checks and balances
SHOULD be protected from BELIEFS in statism that violate our beliefs. Agreed.
But that is NOT to say the Constitution doesn't apply to people with statist beliefs!

This is another example of why it's critical to make the DISTINCTION
between denying services to a "gay PERSON of LGBT beliefs or practice"
vs. barring the govt from ESTABLISHING LGBT BELIEFS. Beliefs is one thing, a person WITH those beliefs is another.

The First Amendment bars prohibiting or establishing RELIGION,
not barring "people" of a certain religion who are still protected as citizens.

 

Dear @ImNotOliver
The Iroquois share credit for the concept of League or Confederate govt by sovereign entities.

As for the natural laws the Constitution is based on, these are supposed to be universal for all humanity,
regardless of religious or political creed or affiliation. The natural laws are self-existent and part of
human nature that none of us created yet all are under these laws by our nature of human will and awareness/conscience.

As for American History, I find Allen West summarized it best:
Today's liberals came from Radical Liberalism under Rousseau
who believed the role of Govt was to establish the common will for all the people.
Today's Conservatives came from Classic Liberalism under Locke
who believed in limited Govt that the people used the laws/Constitution to check against abuses.

American politics also uses the term "socialism or socialist" more loosely
to mean beliefs that govt should promote public welfare through social programs,
instead of meaning LITERAL socialism as in govt OWNED production and property.

So together, today's liberals generally focus on ROUSSEAU's political beliefs
that the responsibility of govt is to provide for the common welfare through SOCIAL programs,
while today's conservatives want limited govt that only does the minimal national security/military defense,
and governs commerce and contracts between states and foreign nations, but stays out of personal social policies.

The Veteran Party of America states this best in their mission statement
that "all social legislation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

Sadly, I don't see as strong convictions anymore from either the Republicans or Conservatives
who claim to be Constitutionalists. So that's why we are hearing more from Libertarians
and Tea Party activists who are sick of the sellouts to "liberal" liberalism - the Rousseau style instead of Locke's original intent of limited
govt to maximize the power retained by the people.

 

Well, the thing is you're using the world liberal wrong. You're using it to describe the current left wing, which is far from liberal. A classic liberal is like today's libertarians--with freedom and liberty being the important thing, and government being used to guarantee freedom.

 

The Constitution does apply to people with liberal or statist beliefs. It says they may not hold public office.

 

The constitution didn't say any thing about liberal government.. You want a one party system like Iran?

 

1) If it was a crime to advocate for Reverse Discrimination and practice deplatforming of anyone Liberals disagree with then I would be for it 100%.

2) If it was a crime to advocate for Welfare State and for gun control to save people's lives, I would be a criminal.

There are Liberals and Liberals.

 

I support The Bill of Positive Rights:

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care.

I oppose guns and narcotics.

I am called a Liberal -- someone who opposes Free Speech, Equality, and Presumption of Innocence.

 

I agree 100%. But without

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

people with Disability are not equal.

 

well, definitions are usually based on current usage. Who would know what you were talking about if you used 18th Century definitions?

 

what is positive about stealing food clothing and medical care from others???

 

what does the alt right stand for and why do you oppose it?

 

So, you're saying that the OP does not have a reading comprehension problem, but is employing extreme semantic contortion? . . . I was thinking that he was using a Cliff's Notes version of the Constitution rewritten for Trump University. (Or maybe Constitution for Indoctrinated Dummies).

Is he boycotting logic???

 

why not give an example of where you disagree with logic? How will you learn if your are afraid to try?

 

it really is since our founders described a free state not a state where the poor stole from the rich through govt.

 

everybody is for controlling or taking away a criminal's guns but conservatives are not for taking away our general right to defend ourselves against liberal govt with guns as Constitution described.

 

did someone say it did?? Who?? Where??? Before you post ask yourself whether it means anything.

 

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present an example. What have you learned from your fear?

 

if I have such a desire I will pay the liberal $10,000. Bet or run away with your tail between your legs yet again??

 

so if a guy was thinking of killing 100 people and you knew it his thoughts would be his own??

 

too timid to oppose Nazi beliefs? You want to wait until they are marching people off to the gas chambers?

 

why is the liberal so afraid to tell us what he thinks it is? what does the liberal learn from his fear?

 

There is a distinct difference between thoughts and actions.

As to the other, if they are marching people off to the gas chambers then they have already gone against the Constitution in many other ways and trampled upon our freedoms. I am sure at that point I would already be fighting and or dead.

 

so you want to oppose statism with the Girl scouts??

 

Why?? Trump has conservatives on SCOTUS , huge tax cuts, anti-obamacare, deregulation. That's far better than a liberal!

 

Our Founders were conservatives for freedom from big liberal govt and they held strong Christian social values just like modern conservatives. If you disagree why not try to put your liberal feelings into words so you can tell us why?