The US Constitution Legislates Morality

RebuttalA) Semantics1) I find it funny that CON is charging me with semantics abuse. It took 58 comments in the comment section for CON to agree to a simple definition of "morality". This is why I added the severe penalty for engaging in semantics abuse.CON attempted a semantics argument with the word "conduct". I have no idea to what he is referring to when he states: "The 1st source refers..., the 2nd source refers..., and the 3rdsource refers..." After all, he only brought out one source for the word "conduct".Regardless, it should be clear that, like morality, there is nothing in either the words "morality", or "conduct" that would require social acceptance. Everyone has their own code of conduct. Some people's code may coincide with Christianity's code of conduct, but that need not be the case. This code of conduct would be the individual's moral code. This fully conforms to the definition of morality in round #1, which also makes allowances for an individual's moral code. I want to remind CON and the audience that this round #1 definition was CON's definition, not PRO's. My own (rejected) definitions were from wikipedia or a dictionary.CON also attempted semantics in defining the word "right". This has nothing to do with the resolution and is not worthy of comment.B) The Constitution's JurisdictionCON asserts that the Constitution does not apply to all the people, but only to those in government. I must point out that, true or not, this does not negate the resolution. The Constitution is still a code of conduct people must abide by, in CON's case people in the government, else face punishment. Regardless, the preamble to the Constitution properly defines its jurisdiction:"We the people of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"http://www.law.cornell.edu...Regarding BRISCOE vs. KENTUCKY, a case dealing with money printing, is money printing a moral issue? Secularly, yes. The Constitution does not explain the reasoning behind this; one possible explanation is that without centralized money printing, simple transactions would be harder to conduct. An example relevant to the Founders would be food growers having more difficulty finding customers - more people would then starve. Similarly, Exodus 20:13 does not explain the reasoning behind "Thou Shalt Not Kill". (http://www.esvbible.org...) A possible explanation for Exodus 20:13 is the golden rule - love thy neighbor as yourself. Both are versions of morality - one secular, one religious.Just think about how many other moral issues one typically associates with handling money - theft, usury, etc. Regulating money printing is indeed a moral issue.C) Objective MoralityI don't know why CON found it proper to introduce objective morality into the debate, which in CON's case would be the rights to life, liberty, acquiring property, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless, each and every person has their own perspective. This perspective is subjective. The Constitution was written by persons. They combined their subjective perspectives to encode a document that may be relatively more objective than any of their perspectives, but is still ultimately subjective. This subjective morality is what we follow when we follow the law.D) Unjust LawsWhether or not one thinks a law is just or unjust is that person's subjective judgment on that law. It does not change the fact that the law is part of "codes of conduct put forward...by...some other group, such as a [state]," and that it encodes a secular morality.E) Misc.I don't know how CON's points about the 2nd and 5th amendments negate the resolution. Is he arguing that the right to bear arms is a natural right, akin to some sort of objective morality? Wouldn't it be more believabe to think that the right to bear arms is part of the "codes of conduct put forward...by...some other group, such as a [state]..." in essence, part of a secular, subjective morality?