The original intent of the Constitution was that the national government was supposed to be the "government of the States", and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. This produces a national government that is, at least cosmetically "libertarian".
If that's not acceptable to social conservatives, then they've effectively set themselves against anyone arguing for compliance with the original intent of the Constitution. I don't see how that's going to ever work for a "Constitution" party, unless it's just going to become a label, calculated to create a perception, rather than an actual statement of purpose.
Great post, point very well taken.
The original intent of the Constitution was that the national government was supposed to be the "government of the States", and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. This produces a national government that is, at least cosmetically "libertarian".
For the sake of discussion, let's put a finer point on that definition and call it civil-libertarianism, as opposed to the modern definition of libertarianism which far too many associate with the Libertarian Party. In that light, I am happy to agree that our government is not only cosmetically libertarian, but civil-libertarian by nature.
If that's not acceptable to social conservatives, then they've effectively set themselves against anyone arguing for compliance with the original intent of the Constitution. I don't see how that's going to ever work for a "Constitution" party, unless it's just going to become a label, calculated to create a perception, rather than an actual statement of purpose.<
Agreed, providing one establishes such a thing as viewed through the prism of the Judeo-Christian Ethic, as the original intent of the Constitution was:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams
John Adams was absolutely right... And without some concession toward that, civil-libertarian thought must needfully wind up exactly where the Libertarian Party's thought process will inevitably go: Anarchy.
By the same token, even conservative Christians can be bent pretty easily toward social justice issues - If their primary principles are not being served, they tend to fall back to their secondary principles - Huckabee was buoyed to a great height by Christians (almost exclusively) because he stood for those primary principles, when none of the leading candidates did... And his big-government ways were not unpalatable to many Christians because of their secondary principles (social justice, helping others, and etc.) Would that they had hauled up Tancredo or Hunter instead - And perhaps they would have, had they the guidance of other conservatives to listen to.
This is a perfect example of what one may get if we don't keep all Conservative principles in mind... and support candidates that all Conservatives can endorse.
“The original intent of the Constitution was that the national government was supposed to be the “government of the States”, and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. This produces a national government that is, at least cosmetically “libertarian”.
If that’s not acceptable to social conservatives, then they’ve effectively set themselves against anyone arguing for compliance with the original intent of the Constitution. I don’t see how that’s going to ever work for a “Constitution” party, unless it’s just going to become a label, calculated to create a perception, rather than an actual statement of purpose.”
You mistake the intent of the social conservatives, except in rare circumstances where a third party is involved (abortion), in which government must intervene on behalf of the victim, we do not seek to enforce morality with the strong arm of the government. The problem is, absent government coercion, the religious institutions must be free to spread its message regarding morals and character in the public square. Which the Government has in its encroachments on areas of education and commerce, and then subsequently removing religious influence from those areas, they have largely created a state of affairs where the religious institution are unable to get its message out in the public square, or influence culture, and you end up with a moral anarchy where none of the Libertarian advocated solutions will work.
Undisciplined people will not become disciplined just because the government is gone, they will cause havoc that will eventually have the other people call for the strong hand of government to subdue them.