The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate Morality

ArgumentMy argument is very, very simple. It's obvious that the Constitution is a set of laws that was enacted, so that portion of the resolution, that the Constitution is legislating something, is not up for debate. The main point of contention deals with exactly what it is legislating. Is it morality? Recall the definition of morality from round #1:Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Does the Constitution differentiate "intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)? " Of course. Therefore, the purpose of the Constitution is to legislate morality. I move to win this debate by this simple argument. I will add some descriptors, but I want to make clear that this is my key point. As long as my key point remains uncontested, I win this simple debate. ---Is this a subjective form of morality? Yes. Each and every one of us has our own concept of what is "good" or "bad". We each have our own perspectives on this matter. Many times, our perspectives coincide, so it may seem as though our perspectives are objective. However, they are only relatively objective - in the end, we will all have our differences. Our perspectives are subjective. The Constitution thus embodies the subjective morality of the Founding Fathers. The amendments to the Constitution embody the subjective morality of the Congress that ratifies the amendment. Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of certain laws embody the subjective morality of the Supreme Court justices ruling on specific cases. Is this a religious form of morality? The Founding Fathers were certainly religious, but they went to great pains to keep religion separate from the state. Therefore, the Constitution would be a secular form of morality. Religion does not own a monopoly on morality. What about the reasoning behind the morality, i. e. why is something considered immoral or "wrong"? For religion, this is typically easy to see. Assuming that we can ascertain the reasoning behind religious morality, the moral reasoning behind "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is pretty straighforward, even though it's not spelled out in Exodus 20:13 (. http://www.esvbible.org...) - would you want to be in a society where someone could take your life whenever they wanted? No. Therefore, religion, which appeals to a higher authority, makes killing others "wrong", and by doing so, makes it immoral. This immorality is enforced by the spectre of eternal damnation for committing such sins. Many societies also encode a provision against murder into law, making it "wrong". These societies enforce this immorality through fines, prison sentences, or worse. By doing so, religious morality and secular morality coincide. What about the moral reasoning behind the separation of powers (articles 1-3 of the Constitution)? The reasoning stems from Montesquieu, who saw fit to prevent "an imminent abuse of power" by the government. (. http://www.montesquieu-institute.eu...) Abuse of power is a broad term that on a personal level is inherent in crimes like rape and murder, where one person abuses the power they have over another to inflict harm or death upon them. Abuse of power was thus "wrong" to Montesquieu, and to the extent that he influenced the Founding Fathers, they also sought to prevent this abuse by adding in his system of checks and balances into the Constitution, thus making it "wrong" for those in government to abuse power in this fashion. This is clearly a moral issue, albeit a secular one. Again, I do not understand how anyone could think that any law doesn't legislate morality. I await CON's response.