It seems you are basically delineating between constitutionalists and non-constitutionalists as those who agree with your particular interpretation of the constitution or not.
For example, lets say someone took a rather generous interpretation of the General Welfare Clause: that it basically gives congress the green light on spending for anything as long as that spending is applied generally, rather than local. That is, throughout the US rather than a specific spot.
Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government. Trump reduced the size of government.
Ten. Ten times is the number that I need to say it before I believe it whole hog.
Draws a line through number 4 on my daily task list
American Heritage Dictionary definition of “constitutionalist.”
“Advocates of a system… where a government should be based on a constitution, in which power is distributed and limited by a system of laws that the rulers must obey,“
But my question for The OP is what exactly is a nonconstitutionalist. Because i sure can’t find anything on the nonconstitutionalist movement or belief system. So what are nonconstitutionalists anyway?
You’re actually on to something. The American right, generally, has a broader range of choices to evoke visceral/intuitive responses than the left does.
I hate the term “centrist”. Not only can it not be defined in absolutive terms, it cannot even be defined in relative terms. If our two end points on a spectrum are Wahhabism and Christian Reconstructionism, then what’s in the middle?
Despite Carlin, I think that it isn’t easy to make a flag that expresses empathy, and I don’t know anybody who would even want to hang one from his garage or pickup truck.
I have all kinds of qualifications on–and problems with–Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind. But I do find that his claim (to simplify it) that liberals (in general) can draw on foundations of care, liberty, and fairness, while conservatives also draw on sanctity, loyalty, and authority for their intuitions/emotional responses has some explanatory power. Liberals are weak on those last three, which happen to be powerful political drivers/motivators (much more than, say, the more abstract notions of fairness, social good, and efficiency that drive my view of Medicaid, for example).