I fail to see anything libertarian or pro-market about it, personally.
Tariffs: The Constitution was created in part to protect industry.
Regulation of Interstate commerce: can be interpreted 2 ways.
General Welfare clause: can be interpreted 2 ways. The authors of the Constitution disagree as to how to interpret it meaning there is no originalist interpretation. Hamilton believed the government should be a charity, Madison did not. Madison even rejected claims that he was father of the Constitution.
Intellectual Property: An anti-thesis of liberty, and is very anti-market.
Bill of Rights: mostly a joke. For example, the 10th Amendment could've had the word "expressly" in it, but it didn't. The 3rd Amendment could've severely limited Federal military/war powers, but it didn't. In fact, it kind of backfired. It didn't limit census powers. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendments were okay. The 9th Amendment doesn't mean a whole lot.
It protected slavery.
It's too democratic: The president could originally serve as long as he liked. There is a house of Representatives which is directly elected by the people, the 16th Amendment was popular enough to be added, as was the 17th.
Can a libertarian school me on any this?
I'll give it props for one thing, and one thing only--the 14th Amendment is unConstitutional. But then, it set up a government in which that could happen, so it's questionable as to whether I should even give it props for that.
Tariffs: The Constitution was created in part to protect industry.
Regulation of Interstate commerce: can be interpreted 2 ways.
General Welfare clause: can be interpreted 2 ways. The authors of the Constitution disagree as to how to interpret it meaning there is no originalist interpretation. Hamilton believed the government should be a charity, Madison did not. Madison even rejected claims that he was father of the Constitution.
Intellectual Property: An anti-thesis of liberty, and is very anti-market.
Bill of Rights: mostly a joke. For example, the 10th Amendment could've had the word "expressly" in it, but it didn't. The 3rd Amendment could've severely limited Federal military/war powers, but it didn't. In fact, it kind of backfired. It didn't limit census powers. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendments were okay. The 9th Amendment doesn't mean a whole lot.
It protected slavery.
It's too democratic: The president could originally serve as long as he liked. There is a house of Representatives which is directly elected by the people, the 16th Amendment was popular enough to be added, as was the 17th.
Can a libertarian school me on any this?
I'll give it props for one thing, and one thing only--the 14th Amendment is unConstitutional. But then, it set up a government in which that could happen, so it's questionable as to whether I should even give it props for that.
Facebook
Twitter