I assure you that in regards to the 1st it will be much, much later. Regarding the 'way the Constitution was written', it was written to require authorization for the federal government to act, and prohibition to prevent the states and the people to act. Put another way, "the powers of the federal government are few and defined; the powers of the states respectively, or of the people, are virtually unlimited.
Arguing from a noninvasive, limited government point, I am often considered a libertarian conservative.
A "liberterian conservative"? Now I have heard everything. LOL!!
Since you obviously do not know, conservatives believe in a limited government that also encourages traditional morality. You are not a conservative. I might be convinced to believe the libertarian part, but not from what I have heard so far.
States face the same constraints as the federal government - otherwise tyranny is merely transfered not prevented.
Since you obviously do not know, conservatives believe in a limited government that also encourages traditional morality. You are not a conservative. I might be convinced to believe the libertarian part, but not from what I have heard so far.
Your ignorance is embarrassing. This why I prefaced my remark with a comment for those with intelligence and a minimum mental capacity.
Traditional morality is the responsibility of the people - not the government. A common refrain for the conservative has been "The government can not legislate morality." Morality can only be instilled by the social institutions of morality - churches and families being primary.
Once, this was an understood in conservatism. Then came the rise of authoritarian moralism - the government has a divine right to proscibe and control all behavior of the people. This is the position you have been promoting. There isn't a problem with invasive government as long as it is invading the realm of personal morality and behavior.
The refocus of no invasive government to the right kind of invasive government led to a split, the religious authoritarian and the small government period position. The religious authoritarians, when confronted by their hypocrisy in no longer desiring small government, to lash out with the unfounded lie that the old conservative position of small government period is amoral and uses libertarian as a pejorative.
Of course, this is not only a purposeful lie, it is a position of gross ignorance. Insisting that people be responsible for morals through church and family rather than government fiat is not an amoral position. Somehow, that seems to be an incomprehensible thought to those that believe people must be controlled for them to behave. Those who believe in people more than the government must the be discredited through attack.
But then, independence is not conducive to a theocracy.