The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate Morality

I thank CON for an interesting response.1) Morality IS determined by legislation.CON states that "what is morally right and wrong is not determined by what is legislated." I fully disagree. First, morality IS right vs wrong. There is no "morally right" action - this is redundant. There is only what is moral (right) and what is immoral (wrong).CON continues: "some believe that morality is determined by God. Many of the Founders were Deists who believed morality is determined by human nature." CON clearly acknowledges moral subjectivity here - everyone thinks differently. How then can we somehow get a group of people to conform to a set of actions that the group can consider to be "right" or "wrong"? Through legislation. Laws determine what a group of people have agreed upon as "right" or "wrong". Laws determine morality for citizens of the state, a group of people. The Constitution does not embody the morality of any one of the Founding Fathers. Rather, it is a product of their combined efforts. Their combined efforts determined what is "right" (ex: separation of powers) and "wrong" (ex: abuse of power) for citizens in the United States of America. I must stress that this is a secular morality, not a religious morality.Is this an objective form of morality? It may be relatively more objective than the views of any one Founding Father, but is ultimately still subjective.The purpose of the Constitution is to determine a set of moral standards - "right" and "wrong" - for a group of people - the citizens of the United States of America. This is merely A set...not THE set...of moral standards that one would feel compelled to obey.2) Organizational Structure is a Moral StructureCON states that "a simple example of a law that does not determine morality is: "Cars shall drive on the right side of the road." This is a moral standard, one determined by law. Allow me to explain. We have to agree upon something. Without something, there would be total chaos - people would be afraid to drive their cars out of the driveway, let alone attempt to drive on a freeway, if no one knew which side of the road to drive on. Therefore, the government differentiates "between [actions] that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)". Again, is this a religious morality? Absolutely not - this is a secular form of morality. The REASONING behind this moral code is that we must have some structure in order to function properly. If you drive on the left side of the street, hopefully the person in the passenger side will slap you over the head and tell you to get your act together. Why? Because you're doing the wrong thing. You are liable to cause an accident and kill somebody. Any cop would tell you that. Hell, anyone would tell you that.This same logic applies to CON's points about the census and elections. Without either, no one would have any idea how many people are in the US, or who should actually lead the country. How could you administer justice when you don't know who we are and who is leading us? You would be wrong every time without a census or elections.This may seem absurd. This is because we are all accustomed to placing morality in a religious context. Without that context, one's moral code becomes much less constrained. Without religious dogma, the justification of a law tends to shed light on why seemingly arbitrary regulations are actually moral obligations. This one boils down to - do you REALLY want to commit murder by killing a fellow driver? Then go ahead and drive 50 mph on the left side of the road during rush hour in an SUV - something that would be just fine and perfectly legal if you did it instead on the right side of the road.3) Anarchy Precludes State MoralityIn an anarchy, there would be no government, no laws, no Constitution. There would be no state-version of morality. This scenario is totally irrelevant to the resolution. Draw up a truth table - P would be false, thus the resolution Q would be affirmed.