Reasons Why Liberals Are Wrong About The Constitution

The Liberals and Conservatives have expressed that they support the Constitution and the values symbolized in it, but they constantly fight about the government’s power when it comes to criminal justice, moral regulatory, the economic regulatory powers and its war powers (Lentz, T.,2013). Liberals are very easily angered when someone accuses them or suggests that they do not understand or support the Constitution. Unfortunately, Liberals have stopped believing in the principles of the Constitution but the reasons why are not clear. We must now try to figure out why Liberals are wrong about the Constitution. There are several reason why Liberals are wrong about the Constitution. Liberal say that they do not like the Constitution because they

feel that it is a puzzling and rigid document that only a person of higher learning (i.e. professor, scholars, Ivy Leaguers, etc.) can understand it Liberals believe that the Constitution should be explained according to the current social changes and expectation. “The Constitution has become so irrelevant to liberals that when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked, regarding Obamacare, where in the document Congress is granted the power to force people to buy health insurance, she asked incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (Troia, N., 2011).

According to Clark Niely III (an attorney at the Institute for Justice) Liberals often argue for a “living Constitution” whose meaning evolves with time. But this view undermines key limitations on government power that are written into the Constitution itself (Niely, C., 2016). Liberals are wrong when they say that the Constitution is a rigid document that does not evolve with time because there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution since it was ratified in 1789. Liberals fail to see that these amendments were ratified because of the nation’s changing needs are different than when it was created in the eighteenth century by our forefathers.

Liberals believe that the government should intervene in order to achieve equal opportunity, social differences and equality not just for minority groups but for all.

They believe that it is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems (studentnewsdaily.com). Liberals believe that the Executive Branch should have the power of a unilateral government (“imperial presidency”). They believe that this would be the best way for Americans to achieve equality and prevent social injustices because it would give the Executive Branch the power to modify laws that are passed by Congress. Unfortunately for Liberals, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they ensured that there were checks and balances so that none of the three branches of government would grow to powerful and to limit the government’s power. They also ensured that there was a separation of powers among the three branches “so that one branch could not create, or abolish, any other branch. This has been one of the basic governing doctrines even though it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution” (Lentz, T.,2013). The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in a manner that the legislative branch would make the laws, the executive branch would carry out the laws and the judicial branch to interpret the laws. However, after the Great Depression the

Executive Branch got more powerful because the people wanted the government to play a bigger role in the economy. The current government still has three separate entities but now they actually share law making power.

The second amendment reads: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Some citizens believe that the “right for people to keep and bear arms creates and individual right theory for citizens of the United States but the Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Liberals believe that the second amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but only allows for the state to keep a militia such as the National Guard. Liberals believe that individuals do not need guns for protection; they believe that the federal and local government should protect citizens through law enforcement agencies and the military. Liberals believe that additional gun control laws should be put into place to stop gun violence. They also believe that this would decrease the chances of criminals using weapons. The belief of the liberals believe that the more guns citizens have in their possession the more violence America will have. My belief is that Liberals are wrong about the second amendment. According to Lenz, the main purpose for citizens wanting to carry weapons is self-defense. Studies have shown that if a criminal attacks someone and the victim pulls out a gun to protect him/herself then more than fifty percent of the time the criminal will back away. According to an article by the Allen B. West “Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards. James Holmes, the movie theater killer, decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’ Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked” (West, A., 2016). The chances of survival would be greater if citizens could pull out their gun if they were attacked rather than pulling out their cell phones to call law enforcement and wait for them to respond. There should be an intense screening and approval process before you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. If you can carry a weapon when deployed to war you should be able to carry a weapon to protect yourself and your family when in the United States. Weapons should not end up in the hands of criminals or mentally ill citizens. As long as law-abiding, sane citizens are within the limits of the law they should be allowed to carry weapons and not depend on the National Guard or Law Enforcement to protect them. The problem is not guns. The problems is the citizens who misuse them. Then there is the issue of the citizens who do not lock up their weapons who have small children which could cause young innocent children to be killed. I do not think that many of the mass shootings in schools would have happened if the parents of many of these killers had their weapons locked up.
One of the functions of the Constitution is the protection of individual rights also known as civil liberties.

Civil liberties include the First Amendment which guarantees the right to the freedoms of speech, press, and religion. (totallyhistory.com). The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress grievances” (conservapedia.com). Liberals are wrong when they challenge the freedom of speech that is given to every individual under the first amendment. According to Lenz, “The civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution do not, as a rule, give individuals a right, they place limits on the government’s power to limit individual freedom” (Lenz, 2013). Liberals have passed laws that limit individuals and the press freedom of speech. The case of Schenck vs. United States is a classic example of how liberals have challenged the First Amendment. Charles Schenck was a member of the Populist Party who did not agree with the United States involvement in World War I (WWI). He handed out flyers opposing the war because he felt that the war was “a capitalist enterprise to exploit workers, and compared the military draft with slavery”. He was convicted under the Espionage Act, which he appealed to the Supreme Court. He appealed his conviction because

he felt that “the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech” (McBride, A., 2006). “The Supreme Court upheld his conviction on the grounds that Congress can prohibit speech that presents a “clear and present danger” that it will cause evils that Congress has power to prevent” (Lenz, 2013). This was a landmark case because it showed that the freedom of speech that is given in the First Amendment has their limits but it depends on the content. The reason for the First Amendment is to make the people of the country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, and not as the government commands