how does constitution protect the free enterprise?

the basic protection that constitution provides to free enterprise.

3 Answers

  • Inco
    Lv 6
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer


    The Tenth Amendment requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this clause means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason.

    It follows that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.

    Thus, capitalism is indirectly protected in the Constitution.

    Also, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."


    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    The Constitution is written to spell out the duties, functions and responsibilities of the three branches of government. The Bill of Rights however, while never addressing this directly, does guaranty the right to the pursuit of happiness. Given Jefferson's comments as stated above, moving away from capitalism will be an infringement upon the people's right to pursue happiness.

    It would seem that those who do not like capitalism are the ones who would be held brutally accountable for their inactions and poor life decisions.

    America, was founded on the principle that anyone can amass great wealth and land. In the earliest hours of this country's life, only those of aristocracy could do that.

    Hope this helps!

    Source(s): YA Doc n Spock
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Right To Free Enterprise

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    The Constitution. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”. That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that’s radical change you’d better believe in, or else. OBAMA QUOTE: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government MUST DO ON YOUR BEHALF, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.