constitutionalism

To believe in constitutionalism is essentially to not believe in governance by the consent of the governed.

To be honest, the unwillingness to recognise Crimean secession had a lot more to do with geopolitics than Westphalian constitutionalism.

You can't, however, argue for strict constitutionalism and what appears to be a form of anarchism at the same time.

He bashed Ron Paul when he was campaigning and he posts articles that often seem to ridicule constitutionalism and libertarian-ism alike.

You are confusing two dimensions: direct <--> representative with majoritarianism <--> constitutionalism.

It would be better to call it liberal constitutionalism or something.

These ideas fueled abolitionism, constitutionalism, and eventual democratic expansions.

In the US, there is a significant overlap between libertarianism and conservatism, due to American political traditions themselves being rooted in constitutionalism and suspicion of centralized power.

We are wildly far beyond strict constitutionalism.

> It is an objectively true moral statement that minority rights ought not depend on majority opinion (that is the whole point of constitutionalism).

It should be clear that in a US context, I'm referring to specifically Anglo-American conservatism, which does differ from other varieties in its devotion to particular forms of constitutionalism and to economic liberalism, i.e.

What this essay does is put ASI into historical context and put forth a solution to a problem that has also been around for a long time: republican constitutionalism (which has nothing to do with the GOP or Western right-wing movements).

Ok, here's the issue with this article: "party-run publications and Web sites have vehemently denounced constitutionalism and civil society" Seriously?

If one prefers living constitutionalism, the question is – has American society "evolved" to the point that the First Amendment's historical obscenity exception ought to jettisoned entirely, as opposed to merely be read narrowly?

An honest version of "living constitutionalism" would be an extremely narrow principle, reserved for unusual cases where someone has taken action contrary to the accepted social consensus.

When your core sociopolitical axioms are generally dominated by strict Constitutionalism, Judeo-Christian ethics, Randian objectivism, and austere governmental fiscal policy (including gold/silver-based currency), you're probably a "tea party" type.

Constitutionalism is whatever, but it is interesting how much more dogmatically divided Canada seems to be getting under the decidedly more authoritarian administration of Trudeau.

So yes, when we follow true Constitutionalism, voting is important because we should be selecting our leaders to uphold that limited government.

Constitutionalism is about the core restraints placed on Gov.