In a recent opinion piece, law professor Eugene Volokh pushes back against the idea that the Constitution exists primarily to protect liberty. He points to the Preamble, which lists multiple purposes: forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty. Volokh argues that the framers intended all of these goals to be pursued together, not with any single one categorically prioritized.
Volokh acknowledges that these aims sometimes clash—national defense may restrict liberty, and liberty may complicate defense. But he also notes that they often reinforce one another: liberty tends to boost economic growth, which in turn strengthens national security and domestic stability. He extends the argument to include freedom from foreign oppression, criminal violence, and even "freedom from want," suggesting that material well-being is part of practical liberty.
The author concludes that, absent a better alternative, the Constitution's multi-goal framework is worth keeping. He cautions against perverse consequences when pursuing one goal undermines another, but he rejects the notion that any single value—liberty or otherwise—should dominate. This is a single opinion piece, so it represents one perspective in ongoing debates about constitutional interpretation, but it offers a clear challenge to liberty-first readings of the founding document.