I agree in principle ... but principles and the real world don't always play nicely, because we're not really capable of crafting "principles" that can fully address every possible situation.
So, suppose in some real-world situation we don't completely agree on what constitutes "limited, Constitutional government," what then?
To give a concrete example: suppose you and I don't agree on what the policy of a "limited, Constitutional government" ought to be on immigration. Are we enemies?
Core principles cover every situation. It is only in the tangle of 'situation ethics' that people get confused.
That people have disagreed on what "Constitutional Government" comprises is evident, even in the cases which have appeared before the Supreme Court, where the justices disagree as well.
The question arises of whether or not an agreement can be forged which does not violate the core principles of those agreeing.
In no wise can the nanny state be construed as 'limited Constitutional Government', but the greatest debates will be found on the ideological interface of how much government is enough vs now much government is too much.
That is where principles, where unalienable rights come in. Will my exercise of my rights prevent you from exercising your rights? Not a question of whether you approve of or like what I do, but one of will it stop you from doing what you do. Will your inconvenience or disagreement override my fundamental right? and vice-versa.
It is the 'finding' of rights not fundamental to, or in direct contravention to the fundamental and unalienable rights of others which has led to much of the conflict, including the notion that Government, a human construct, has any Rights at all. It has powers, granted by those governed, but no Rights.
In the past, those unalienable rights were denied to those in servitude, because they were not considered "human". Despite that, those Rights were eventually acknowledged, as was the humanity of those who possessed them.
Now, that same fundamental issue of unalienable Rights has moved to a different arena, where the rights of a fetus will be denied until such time as they, too, are considered "human". Yet the Court charged with interpreting who had rights failed to acknowledge that even once, they, too could be referred to as a "fetus" and by their own decision could have denied themselves the unalienable and most fundamental Right to Life.
The assumption that Government has the Right to deem these developing humans somehow without rights is a dangerous one, for it leads to the most vulnerable adults among us being in peril of being some how deemed 'less than human' despite their DNA, and being equally vulnerable to being eliminated for being inconvenient, either on an individual basis or en bloc for being opposed to policy or 'consuming resources' which others might feel would be better turned to a different end.
While that may seem far fetched to some, keep in mind the seminal concept of taking from one who has something to give it to someone else who will allegedly put it to better use is already adjudicated in the taking of property under the
Kelo decision. Food, medicine, water, housing, may not be far behind. In this case, too, the unalienable Right to life, and even property, would be denied.
The assumption by those who stand to benefit (directly or indirectly) from Government largess, that somehow through a transitive property of handouts, they are entitled to confer on Government the right to infringe on the rights of others is a key stumbling block to a more universal agreement on how much Government is too much.
Which brings us back to the contest at hand. The primary purpose of government is to secure the unalienable Rights of the individual to Life, Liberty, and property (elsewhere referred to as the pursuit of happiness). When the government is no longer functioning to those ends, it is time to alter it or replace it, but in the two most likely standard bearers of that replacement, I see no alteration in the vector the government is on which can be reasonably predicted in the expressed principles of the two leading candidates for president, either in direction or magnitude.
For that reason, as articulated numerous times on this forum, I will put my support behind a person, and even more a Party, which conveys credible support for that Constitutional Government the founders envisioned and laid out in those foundational documents. If enough others join me, we will effect that change.
