I recently came upon an article titled Five Things Millennials Should Understand About Constitutional Conservatism<\/a>. As a Millennial myself, I decided to click through and see if the author, fellow Millennial Mary Ramirez, had anything to say that I hadn\u2019t heard before. In her article, Ramirez speaks to Millennials who support Bernie Sanders\u2019 candidacy, seeking to convince them that Bernie\u2019s proposals would limit<\/em> their rights while constitutional conservatism guarantees<\/em> their rights.<\/p>\n Ramirez starts by reminding Millennials how much they longed to be \u201cout from under Mom and Dad\u2019s thumb\u201d as teenagers. Then she ties it into constitutional conservatism as follows:<\/p>\n So let me ask you this: if you couldn\u2019t stand being told what to do, where to go, and otherwise how to live under your parents\u2019 authority\u2014what makes you think having an all-powerful government to do the exact same thing on an infinitesimally bigger scale is any different?<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what I\u2019m getting at: Millennials love Bernie Sanders.<\/p>\n Let me clearer: Millennials love Bernie Sanders, the unapologetic socialist running for president.<\/p>\n Socialism is pretty simple: It\u2019s basically varying degrees of wealth redistribution, mandated and controlled by the government. And, there\u2019s usually a great deal of cultural engineering thrown in there too.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Throughout this article, Ramirez is going to conflate a lot of things. For example, no one wants a Big Brother government a la 1984, not Millennials, not Bernie Sanders, not anyone<\/em>. No one is asking for a government like China\u2019s, either, or like the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors. We know damn well that governments can be dictatorial and abusive. We\u2019ve all read dystopian novels and watched dystopian films. We cheered with Katniss when she took down the Capitol in the Hunger Games trilogy, for gracious sakes. We get it\u2014government can be very, very<\/em> bad.<\/p>\n But Ramirez makes the mistake of assuming that government is always<\/em> bad, or at the very least always highly problematic, and that less government is always better than more government. This is not at all evident to me, and in fact, it\u2019s pretty evidently false. Government is nothing more and nothing less than a tool\u2014a tool that can be used for good or for evil, depending on who wields it and how. That there are sometimes abuses does not erase the potential of government to do good.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s talk about Ramirez\u2019 analogy. When teenagers talk about wishing they didn\u2019t have to follow their parents\u2019 rules, the rules they\u2019re talking about tend to be\u00a0very different from those involved in the sort of government expansion many Millennials now want to see. Millennials don\u2019t want the government telling them\u00a0where they can go and who they can see, a la the parents of teenagers. Millennials (or at least the Millennials Ramirez is trying to reach in her article)\u00a0want the government to provide affordable\u00a0healthcare, relief from college loan debt, and more job opportunities. Ramirez\u2019 description of the programs Bernie is advocating is also disingenuous\u2014it only sounds big and scary when you use words like \u201cwealth redistribution\u201d rather than words like \u201cgovernment-funded healthcare\u201d or \u201caffordable college tuition.\u201d<\/p>\n Ramirez\u2019 central thesis appears to be that government handouts (which is how she seems to see things like single-payer healthcare or student debt relief) always comes with strings that require sacrificing freedoms. She seems to see this\u00a0as common sense, as something that doesn\u2019t\u00a0even need explaining or proving, and that\u2019s probably the primary weak spot of her argument. Yes,<\/em> a governmental system that provides affordable healthcare and college must of necessity get the money somewhere, and that means taxes. But there is a world of difference between being required to pay taxes and being required to ask your parents before you go out (and in case you haven\u2019t noticed, this is the problem I have with her analogy).<\/p>\n Ramirez could stick to warning Millennials that these programs would require tax increases, which is true, but instead she wants to argue something else\u2014she wants Millennials to know that\u00a0these programs mean giving up their freedoms<\/em>.<\/p>\n Bernie Sanders preaches a\u00a0very clear message<\/a>\u00a0of solutions to what we\u2019re all experiencing\u2014especially those of us just now coming of age, and who have no concept of anything but a crappy economy and crippling, burdensome debt.<\/a><\/p>\n His promises bring hope to a generation that\u2019s scared to death about its future.<\/p>\n He talks a lot about all the free stuff you\u2019re going to GET.<\/p>\n (And\u00a0for the record<\/a>, we could cut the entire military and tax everyone who makes more than $1 million at 100 percent and still not be able to pay for it all\u2014but that\u2019s another story.)<\/p>\n But have you ever really thought about what you\u2019re going to have to give up to get it?<\/p>\n Probably not, since you\u2019ve likely been told it\u2019s conservatism (specifically, constitutional conservatism) and its stodgy religious tenants and insipid obsession with rugged individuality that\u2019ll force you to give stuff up.<\/p>\n Is it, now? Let\u2019s take a look:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice that Ramirez makes it clear that she is not focusing here on taxes or what the programs Bernie promises would cost\u2014she mentions taxes and cost and then says \u201cthat\u2019s another story.\u201d What she wants to talk about here is not taxes and costs but rather freedoms<\/em>. She wants to convince Millennials that constitutional conservatism will protect<\/em> their freedoms while Bernie\u2019s promises threaten<\/em> their freedoms. Does she succeed? Let\u2019s read on.<\/p>\n We talk a lot about the Constitution\u2014and how its recognition of inherent rights is what makes this whole thing so unique. See, just like\u00a0Sen. Ben Sasse brilliantly put it<\/a>, \u201cmost governments in the past said \u2018might makes right, and the king has all the power, and the people are dependent subjects.\u2019 The American Founders say \u2018no, God gives us rights by nature, and government is just our shared project to secure those rights.\u2019 Government is\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>the author or source of those rights.\u201d<\/p>\n We also talk about it being a static document. Why? Because if it\u2019s a living, breathing document\u2014are your rights really inherent? If it\u2019s moldable and pliable to whatever\u2019s the cause du jour, are the rights you have today for CERTAIN the rights you\u2019ll have tomorrow?<\/p>\n Where\u2019s your guarantee?<\/p>\n Just remember, to get Bernie\u2019s free stuff (which isn\u2019t remotely free), you\u2019re going to do have to do a lot of constitutional twisting and molding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Good god. If the Constitution were in fact a static document, and if in fact we assumed the rights laid out by the founding fathers were absolute and unchanging, we would still have slavery. But there\u2019s more than that going on here. If God gives us rights, and not the government, why put so much emphasis on the Constitution? Shouldn\u2019t we instead be talking about what rights God does or does not give? Why would you assume that the founding fathers knew perfectly which rights these were? If you want to argue that God inspired the Constitution, you have a very serious problem\u2014namely, that God clearly doesn\u2019t\u00a0think people of color have the right not to be slaves.<\/p>\n And actually, if we want to go back to the time when the Constitution was written, it\u2019s worth mentioning that married women did not have a legal identity, and could not own property, oh and also that women couldn\u2019t vote. In fact, only white men who owned property<\/em> could vote. And then there\u2019s the whole Native American genocide thing. Yeah, that<\/em>. I have to say, I for one am very<\/em> glad that our rights\u2014and the Constitution\u2014have not<\/em> been static.<\/p>\n But more than this, I want to know what rights Ramirez is talking about when she says\u00a0that constitutional conservatism means our rights are \u201cprotected\u201d and \u201cguaranteed.\u201d For example, many Millennials (and others) see healthcare as a right, and some even see food and shelter as a right. We as a society also see education as a right, though that right is at this point generally applied only to elementary and secondary education and not to postsecondary education. Constitutional conservatism absolutely does not<\/em> protect these rights. Under constitutional conservatism, you have freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of press, freedom from warrantless search, and the right to a fair trial, but\u00a0also the freedom to starve to death\u00a0or\u00a0to die of untreated cancer<\/em>.<\/p>\n Ramirez would have her readers think constitutional conservatives care about rights while others don\u2019t, but this is severely misleading. The Millennials she is focusing on here\u00a0also<\/em> believe in freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of press, freedom from warrantless search, the right to a fair trial, and other rights that constitutional conservatives champion, it\u2019s just that they don\u2019t think our\u00a0rights stop there. They\u2014we\u2014also believe that LGBTQ people have the right not to be discriminated\u00a0against, that children have the right to an education, and that all people have the right to healthcare, food, and shelter.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t think all taxes are evil. We think\u00a0punitive<\/i>\u00a0taxes are evil.<\/p>\n At what point in a person\u2019s professional life do they shift from being deserving of their income, to being unfairly in possession of it? Is it $150,000 a year; $500,000 a year; $1 million a year? What\u2019s the offending figure, and who decides?<\/p>\n How is it fair that top earners pay astronomical percentage rates\u00a0just because<\/i>, while it\u2019s UNFAIR to suggest we all pay a flat percentage of our income for a government we all use?<\/p>\n But, that\u2019s the only way to even come close to dreaming of paying for all the free things Bernie\u2019s offering\u2014stick the \u201crich\u201d (however that\u2019s defined) for as much as we can.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So compassionate. Much understanding.<\/p>\n I\u2019m really not sure how to respond to this one except to say that it ought to be self-evident\u00a0that those who have more should be\u00a0able to pay more in taxes than those who have less. I absolutely agree that there is such a thing as taxing too much, and I do think conversations about how Bernie\u2019s proposals would be funded are absolutely merited, but Ramirez is coming out against progressive taxation altogether, and frankly, that\u2019s pretty much the definition<\/em> of heartless.<\/p>\n Look, my husband is in a STEM field that should pay quite well if we ever make it out of this barren wasteland called graduate school. In the next five to ten\u00a0years, we anticipate that our combined income will put us into the top 20%, and perhaps eventually into the top 10%. I know that means we will pay more as a percentage in taxes than we do now, and I\u2019m glad of that.\u00a0<\/em>My husband and I\u00a0are part of the\u00a0greater society and benefit from state education funding, roads, sanitation, police, and much more. That we should pay more because we are able to pay more is not unfair, it\u2019s reasonable<\/em>.<\/p>\n One more note. Ramirez headlines this section by promising Millennials\u00a0that constitution conservatism lets\u00a0them\u00a0keep more of their money, but\u00a0she then\u00a0comes out not only\u00a0against high taxes but also against progressive taxation, apparently without realizing that the flat tax she\u00a0recommends would mean the poor would keep less<\/em> of their money. This seems like a strange oversight. She may be assuming that Millennials are not poor, but given Millennials\u2019 concerns about jobs and college loan debt, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s a fair assumption to make\u2014and even if it is, she\u2019s so interested in reducing taxes on the rich that she doesn\u2019t even seem to realize that she\u2019s screwing the poor.<\/p>\n My husband and I married before we finished our undergraduate degrees, and soon headed off to graduate school with a baby in tow. We weren\u2019t the sort of poor that works three jobs and still can\u2019t make rent, and being in grad school meant that our relative poverty was in some sense voluntary and had an end in sight. Still,\u00a0things were tight, especially with the cost of childcare. And you know what? Given how low our combined income was, combined with our status as students and our ability to claim child tax credits, we paid very little if\u00a0anything in taxes for several years, and that was a godsend. Ramirez would like to see that change for families in situations like ours, and for millions of other low-income families just scraping by.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s get this straight. Ramirez\u00a0is\u00a0not simply arguing for lower taxes overall, she\u2019s for lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor<\/em>. She needs to at least be honest about that.<\/p>\n There\u2019s nothing wrong with needing a helping hand when there\u2019s nowhere else to turn. But here\u2019s the bottom line: We don\u2019t want people trapped in an endless cycle of government benevolence where they are dependent on the government to give them more; dependent on the government to force some employer to pay them more; dependent on the government to force that employer to provide them with the benefits they need.<\/p>\n We hear a lot about what the government should give to the poor. When we do hear about how the poor will be raised up OUT of welfare? OUT of a minimum wage job? OUT of a Medicaid situation?<\/p>\n And this isn\u2019t all just about the money\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ahem. The entire point of welfare is to lend a hand when people need it and<\/em> help people out of poverty. In fact,\u00a0only 15%<\/a>\u00a0of AFDC recipients stay on welfare for five or more continuous years. In other words, being on welfare longterm is fairly rare. Welfare dependency is largely a myth<\/a>. The problem is not being \u201ctrapped in an endless cycle of government benevolence where they are dependent on the government,\u201d the problem is being trapped in a cycle of poverty<\/em>\u00a0where the family lacks the resources and knowledge needed to catapult their child out of poverty and into the middle class. Government programs are designed to ensure against absolute deprivation and to provide opportunities for getting out<\/em> of poverty. Are they perfect? No. Could they be improved? Yes. But let\u2019s not pretend no one cares\u00a0about raising people out of<\/em> poverty.<\/p>\n Also, WTF is with Ramirez both deriding people for being \u201cdependent on the government to force some employer to pay them more\u201d and<\/em> saying that we never hear about how the poor should be raised up \u201cOUT of a minimum wage job\u201d? How in the heck is a person barely making it on a minimum wage job supposed to see their situation improve without (a) the government raising the minimum wage or (b) having access to affordable postsecondary education (one of the handouts Ramirez keeps talking about)?<\/p>\n While we\u2019re on the subject, what exactly is \u201ca Medicaid situation\u201d? For several years\u00a0after beginning of graduate school, my husband and I had our children on Medicaid. In my state, every family up to 200% of the poverty rate qualifies to have their children on state Medicaid. If your income rises above that (as ours eventually did), you get bumped off of Medicaid. In other words, you get out of \u201ca Medicaid situation\u201d by making a higher income. And you know what? I\u2019d love it if everyone who is poor could simply\u00a0make more money, but without raising the minimum wage or providing affordable education to help people qualify for higher-paying jobs or creating new high-paying jobs, that\u2019s not going to just happen.\u00a0But\u00a0also? There\u2019s nothing wrong with Medicaid. I wish they would expand it to all<\/em> children, honestly. It\u2019s a truly excellent program, and I miss it.<\/p>\n So let me ask you this. What is exactly Ramirez talking about when she says constitution\u2019 conservatism \u201cmeans actual<\/em> concern for the poor\u201d? In the paragraphs following this statement, she talks about not wanting people trapped in a cycle of government dependency and asks why we don\u2019t hear more about raising the poor out of poverty, but, well, that\u2019s it<\/em>. That\u2019s all she says. Where is the concern for the poor she\u2019s talking about? There\u2019s concern about the government providing welfare and concern about the government raising minimum wage, but what is her solution<\/em> for the poor, exactly? Work more jobs? Just try harder? Ramirez doesn\u2019t provide any reason for thinking\u00a0the poor would be better off with a lack of government programs and action, and that renders her utterly unconvincing.<\/p>\n Look, we don\u2019t care about who you\u2019re sleeping with. I mean, sure, many of us may have religious convictions about it, but really, we largely don\u2019t care. We may try to convince you of that conviction, but ultimately it\u2019s your business. We also don\u2019t care if you want to celebrate that love with a big, beautiful ceremony and party.<\/p>\n But is it really constitutionally, justifiably fair to force someone whose religious beliefs say otherwise to lend their personal business, property or talent to it? And is it constitutionally justifiable to force a religion to redefine its institution because society has decided it\u2019s no longer that religion\u2019s business?<\/p>\n And it\u2019s not just about marriage and homosexuality. When it\u2019s ok to tell people that they MUST not only accept a certain view, but set their own aside in the process, who says where it all ends? And if you don\u2019t have a Constitution that backs up a set of stationary rights, (see No. 1) what are your rights at all?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I . . . what?<\/p>\n I actually know plenty\u00a0of constitutional conservatives who think bans on sodomy were totally constitutional and that Lawrence v. Texas was wrong, so I\u2019m so<\/em> not on board with the assertion that constitutional conservatives \u201cdon\u2019t care about who you\u2019re sleeping with.\u201d But we\u2019ll leave that one aside for now.<\/p>\n The rest of this reads as though it\u2019s written in code. Ramirez says she\u2019s fine with gay people having a \u201cbig, beautiful ceremony and party.\u201d Translation: she\u2019s against gay marriage, but doesn\u2019t have a problem with private commitment ceremonies. So much for rights.\u00a0Next she says businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. Awesomesauce. Does she also believe businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people of color, I wonder? I\u2019m afraid to ask. Finally,\u00a0Ramirez says that it\u2019s not okay to \u201cforce a religion to redefine its institution\u201d\u2014i.e. marriage\u2014\u201cbecause society has decided it\u2019s no longer that religion\u2019s business.\u201d First off, no one is forcing religious institutions to change how they define marriage. Secondly, marriage as instituted by the government is a legal contract. Does she want to end that?<\/p>\n Despite what Ramirez appears to believe, the government is not telling people what to believe. People are free to be bigots. They are not, however, free to run a business that discriminates against people on the basis of things like race or religion, or, increasingly, sexual orientation. Ramirez appears\u00a0believes that people should<\/em> be free to run a business that discriminates against certain groups of people based on characteristics like sexual orientation. In fact, she seems\u00a0to see that as a right. But what about the rights of those who are being discriminated against? Do those not matter too?<\/p>\n Ramirez doesn\u2019t seem to recognize that, at the very least, she\u2019s talking about an area where two groups of people\u2019s rights conflict. Instead, she seems to assume that she\u2019s talking about people\u2019s rights while everyone else is talking about handouts (the right to healthcare) or\u00a0coercion (LGBTQ rights). Except that they\u2019re not. The actual problem here appears to be that Ramirez disagrees with many other Millennials on what rights people should have, but that\u2019s not at all the story Ramirez thinks she\u2019s covering.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t hate minorities. We hate discrimination.<\/p>\n And separating out which lives are more important than others IS discrimination. We hate that we don\u2019t\u2014as a nation\u2014look at\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0lives as equal, and equally deserving of attention, of help\u2014of justice. When we look at the biological skin color as opposed to the living, breathing human being, don\u2019t we devalue that person by making them nothing more than one of many?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here, let me translate that for you:<\/p>\n We don\u2019t hate minorities. We just hate programs and initiatives that focus on helping minorities, because we shouldn\u2019t see skin color. All Lives Matter.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n I\u2019ll get back to her on that when people of color cease to be overrepresented in prison and underrepresented among\u00a0college faculty, and when people of color are no longer\u00a0racially profiled by the police (and basically everyone else). Race-based\u00a0problems can\u2019t be fixed without race-based\u00a0solutions.<\/p>\n Ramirez finishes with this:<\/p>\n Let\u2019s get back to the original question: If you couldn\u2019t wait to get out from under your parents\u2019 thumbs\u2014what makes you think being under the government\u2019s thumb (in exchange for a bunch of seemingly free stuff and social reengineering) is any better?<\/p>\n You see, with government calling the shots\u2014from healthcare to education to religion\u2014you get as much freedom as the government\u00a0TODAY<\/i>\u00a0determines you can have.<\/p>\n See how much you\u2019d have to give up?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n By now it\u2019s pretty clear that by \u201cfree stuff\u201d Ramirez is talking about things like government-run healthcare or tuition-free state colleges. By \u201csocial engineering,\u201d she appears to mean gay marriage and anti-discrimination ordinances. Someone may want to point out to her that Millennials by and large see this sort of \u201csocial engineering\u201d as a good thing and as a positive step toward protecting\u00a0all American\u2019s rights. Actually, strike that, most Millennials don\u2019t see gay marriage or anti-discrimination ordinances\u00a0as\u00a0\u201csocial engineering\u201d to begin with. Instead,\u00a0they see them\u00a0as\u00a0efforts to guarantee people\u2019s\u00a0rights, which is exactly what Ramirez thinks constitutional conservatism is all about. See also my comments above on this being a conflict not between having rights<\/em> or giving up your freedoms<\/em> but rather between what sorts of rights people should have.<\/p>\n Still,\u00a0at long last, Ramirez answers a question I\u2019ve had from the beginning of the piece\u2014what are these freedoms we will allegedly have to give up? She again speaks of people being\u00a0\u201cunder the government\u2019s thumb,\u201d but this time she gives information on what she means by that when she references\u00a0\u201cgovernment calling the shots\u2014from healthcare\u00a0to\u00a0education to\u00a0religion.\u201d Let\u2019s unpack that.<\/p>\n First\u00a0let\u2019s talk about healthcare. Remember when private health insurance companies would kick people off when they got sick, claiming it was a preexisting condition or some such? The entire reason Congress passed the ACA was to make the health insurance marketplace more fair for the consumer. In other words, the government stepped in to take us out<\/em> from under the thumb of private insurers<\/em>. Ramirez acts like the choice is one between being under the government\u2019s thumb and being free. It\u2019s not. Finally,\u00a0while it\u2019s true that a fully single-payer system might\u00a0mean sacrificing some freedom of choice, it would also mean having the right to a basic level of healthcare\u2014a right we currently do not have.<\/p>\n As for education, it\u2019s unclear here whether Ramirez is talking about public schools or whether she\u2019s talking about the idea of tuition-free state colleges. I know quite a number of constitutional conservatives who are against public schools entirely, because they believe the government has no authority\u00a0to be involved in education. The problem is that without public schools and compulsory attendance laws, children do not have a right to an education. If Ramirez is talking about tuition-free state colleges, on the other hand, I\u2019m at a loss to know what she means when referencing \u201cgovernment calling the shots.\u201d\u00a0Perhaps there would be no state colleges in Ramirez\u2019s ideal world, only private colleges? If so, someone needs to remind her how much more expensive private colleges are. She\u2019s not going to make much headway with Millennials on this one.<\/p>\n What about religion? I\u2019m scratching my head and I\u2019m having trouble figuring out what she means by the government calling the shots on religion. I assume she\u2019s talking about marriage equality, but again, the sort of marriage we\u2019re talking about in that case is the legal contract instituted by the government. No one is forcing churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples. She could also be talking about the birth control mandate, which would have required religious institutions opposed to birth control to provide their employees with health insurance plans that cover birth control, but that\u2019s an issue of their employees\u2019 rights, so again, at the very least it\u2019s two groups\u2019 rights coming in conflict. Perhaps she means requiring private businesses to provide services for gay couples? That has less to do with religion than it does with the government forbidding private businesses from discriminating on the bases of various characteristics\u2014and again, you at the very least have a conflict between two sets of rights, and a disagreement over what rights people do or do not have.<\/p>\n Finally, Ramirez states that \u201cyou get as much freedom as the government TODAY<\/em> determines you have.\u201d But isn\u2019t that how it always is? It\u2019s not like having a Constitution has stopped the federal government from turning a blind eye to slavery or Jim Crow, and it\u2019s not like women have always had the right to vote. Don\u2019t get me wrong, it\u2019s scary to watch as your rights are eroded\u2014here I speak particularly of reproductive rights. But I\u2019d much rather trust to the good will of my fellow citizens in the present and future than go back to having the rights people had in the era of the founding fathers. I like existing as my own legal person, being able to say \u201cno\u201d to sex with my husband if I\u2019m not in the mood, and being able to vote, thank you very much.<\/p>\n As I look again at her last line\u2014\u201cSee how much you\u2019d have to give up?\u201d\u2014I\u2019m still at a loss. What do I give up, exactly? Single-payer healthcare may\u00a0limit\u00a0some of my choice, but it would also mean not being at the whim of health insurance companies and having\u00a0access to healthcare without fear of going broke.\u00a0As for tuition-free college, gay marriage, or\u00a0LGBTQ anti-discrimination ordinances, what am I giving up, exactly? What freedoms am I losing? The only thing I can see giving up should Bernie\u2019s proposals become law is more of my income in taxes, and\u00a0that might be worth it if the new government programs saved me money and improved our economy and society.<\/p>\n In full disclosure, I\u2019m actually not planning to vote for Bernie in the primary. I tend to be skeptical of grandiose promises in our current political climate, and yet I still<\/em> found Ramirez\u2019 article entirely unconvincing. And perhaps that is part of the problem\u2014she seeks to contrast Bernie\u2019s proposals with her own constitutional conservatism with little reference to anything\u00a0between the two\u2014for instance, improving the ACA but not creating\u00a0a single-payer system, or\u00a0reducing state college tuition without eliminating it. Ramirez appears to inhabit a black and white world where government itself is\u00a0an invasion of people\u2019s rights. What she\u2019s missing is\u00a0that while government absolutely can violate people\u2019s rights, it can also protect these rights and\u00a0promote their wellbeing.<\/p>\n If this is the best constitutional conservatism has to offer Millennials\u2014both those supporting Bernie and beyond\u2014its supporters are in for a rude awakening. It\u2019s not that we don\u2019t care about rights and freedoms, it\u2019s just that we disagree on what rights and freedoms we should have and that\u00a0we don\u2019t think constitutional conservatism is the best guarantee of those rights and freedoms. You know. Little details like that.<\/p>\n Stay in touch! Like Love, Joy, Feminism on Facebook:<\/em><\/p>\n\n
1. Constitutional Conservatism Means Your Rights Are Protected. Guaranteed.<\/h4>\n
\n
2. Constitutional Conservatism Means a Government Let\u2019s You Keep More of Your Money.<\/h4>\n
\n
3. Constitutional Conservatism Means\u00a0Actual<\/i>\u00a0Concern For The Poor.<\/h4>\n
\n
4. Constitutional Conservatism Means You Choose How to Run Your Life.<\/h4>\n
\n
5. Constitutional Conservatism Means Equal Protection Under the Law For ALL Americans.<\/h4>\n
\n