The US Constitution Legislates Morality

He is changing the context of the word “conduct” from “the manner in which a person behaves”, to “the manner in which an organization is managed or directed”. . http://oxforddictionaries.com... It is clear that the definition agreed upon refers to a code of socially acceptable behavior. The 1st source refers to the aggregated community, the 2nd source refers to a sub-community, and the 3rd source refers to each individual member of the community. Pro claims that the constitution falls into the 2nd category, which it clearly does not. The 2nd category refers to a sub-community, such as a religion, which determines socially acceptable behavior. For example a religion may tell its followers that sex before marriage is taboo. The constitution makes no such ethical prohibitions, but rather determines what the government does and does not have the authority to do. If we assume that the constitution is categorized under the 2nd source, we assume that the constitution is related to the example for the 2nd source; religion. The 1st amend. makes clear that congress cannot promote nor deter religious beleifs. . http://www.archives.gov... Pro claims that we all must abide by the constitution, or face punishment by the state; this could not be further from the truth. The restrictions put forth by the US constitution only apply to the government, not to its citizens. The states were prohibited from printing money, but in the free banking era the states often hired these private banks to create a state currency. In BRISCOE v. BANK OF KENTUCKY the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank of Kentucky was constitutional because the Bank Notes were issued on the Bank’s credit, rather than the credit of the State. . http://www.oyez.org... The founders did not base the constitution on subjective morality; they based it on objective natural rights. The founders believed that the laws of human nature dictate that “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness… When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void. ” . http://www.nh.gov... This is reflecting by the 5th amend. to the US constitution. . http://www.archives.gov... Just because you have a right to something does not mean it is ethically right to do it. A “right” and being “right” are homonyms. The constitution was constructed with a realist view of the natural laws, as opposed to the personal ideals of the founders. In Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book” he quoted chapter 40 of Cesare Beccaria’s book “of Crimes and Punishment”. “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms. .. disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity. .. will respect the less important and arbitrary ones. .. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. ” . http://www.tysknews.com... Laws are not the same thing as morals. Morals and laws may overlap, but laws can still be immoral. Unjust laws prove that laws are not necessarily moral, while laws that serve to defend basic moral values (such as outlawing murder) prove that laws can coincide with morals. . http://people.wku.edu...