The U.S. Constitution does empower a government. Does the Constitution decrease freedom?
Hank has already stated that he is willing to take his chances with terrorists rather than with the Constitutional self-governance of free Americans.
Don't flummox the lummox.
It's isn't fair to cite the Constitution in a way that fails to support their anarchists' prejudices.
They are all in misery. Even poor William Terrell is barely able to squeeze his wet wiggling nose between the bars to sniff freedom from the far side, the dim sunlight falling coolly and cruelly on his wan, trout-belly white skin, taunting him with the higher freedom that might have been.
Wo, wo wo is them.
Of course the Constitution doesn't "do" anything. It is only a statement about how the government described by it ought to function and what the limits of that government are. So, the real question is, does a government under our Constitution limit freedom?
If we assume the government truly operated as the Constitution dictates, and that the state and municiple governments also conformed, freedom would be preserved. Freedom is what you have before someone uses force to limit it, whether a thug (retail) or government (wholesale). So a government does not really "provide" freedom, it can only "preserve it."
In practice, the government never confines its power to the limits set by the Constitution, because no "piece of paper" is capable of exercising any kind of power over anybody. While the Federal government has certainly limited freedoms (taxes, land regulations, etc. etc.) certainly the biggest culprits, and the ones most of us as individual experience dialy, are the state and local governments.
Hank