I'm not having any argument with myself - I simply didn't confine myself to your original post.
I still think you're confused about the meaning of the word, itself. It does not equal Republican, though I mentioned Paul and he is one. I don't even hold any party memberships myself. (And I can't say I think too well of any of the existing parties, either. If they fail at their own present internal squabbles and fall apart tomorrow, I'd probably jump for joy and be more hopeful than I have been in decades, actually.)
Yes, the Constitution is subject to all kinds of interpretation, and always has been. It's intended to be. But your characterization of lib thought goes wayyyy down the road towards the funny farm. The whole thing was never built to create that freakishly egalitarian socialist dream, any more than its intent was to create and maintain the 1% (if you doubt, go read those guy's bios again). So - it doesn't lean that way, either. But - they came back around and hustled like mad to get that Bill of Rights in place, simply because they knew any further arguments (and there plenty) would keep them from getting a union together at all. They had to let the interstate dust settle a little first.
So - I don't see it as being about this agenda or that, nearly so much as a matter of preserving personal choices to the very greatest extent possible...which pretty much means, the less collective stuff, the better, be it the 99% or the 1%, either way. That's the whole goal of abundant civil liberty - we all get some, and we all get the same. And, it leaves all kinds of room for us to argue the fine points all day, every day, if we feel like it. It boils down to fiscal and bureaucratic conservatism, but says nothing whatsoever about our social stance. Heck - I'm extremely liberal socially, myself. Others tend to think much more conservatively - and that's just fine. Long as you don't tell me how to live, I won't tell you, either.
My issue was strictly with using that term as a pejorative, when it shouldn't be. It simply doesn't carry that connotation. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen it combined with, or used in close proximity to, 'Tea Party' as if the one described or was the equivalent of the other.
I just liked Paul's amendment idea. Sure, sure, they'll finds every possible workaround and justification, just as they do now. But then, we would have a legal, rather than a mere political challenge available to it. I don't even remember the last time I met anyone who didn't think our 'fearless leaders' were a bunch of scum-sucking, self-aggrandizing fools.
Er, no. I do. But that was 2008, and we're over it by now.