is a modern liberal, not a classical liberal. Classical liberals are more what we now call "libertarian." They include Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, other founders. Interestingly, John Stuart Mill is claimed by both the classical and the modern liberals.

Today, what you call a liberal in North America (but not the rest of the world) is a social democrat. Here, they follow FDR and those who followed. Today's liberals in the Democratic party have given up on the military as an instrument for doing good in the world, a tenant of FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, HHH, and Scoop, and many others, but they still retain the notion that government is your friend, thqat it is an instrument to do good, it should replace private charity, and so on. Classical liberals think government is necessary, but should be feared and limited. It was such a notion that led the founders to make a government with checks and balances, and to severely limit the powers of the federal government.

It didn't always work, which is why you have to be vigilant. Modern liberals are fond of "reinterpreting" the constitution and precedents in order to achieve some end. (they aren't the only ones.)

Did you ever wonder why Congress makes laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, when the constitution says clearly, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press? Well, one of the reasons is that in WWI, the Wilson government (proto-FDR liberal) thought that distributing pamphlets asking people to consider resisting the draft were dangerous, and liberal justice Holmes wrote a rousing opinion upholding a law abridging freedom of the press! Here is an OYEZ:

Facts of the Case

During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.

Question

Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

Here is the typically liberal reasoning, from the opinion:

We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.....he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force....The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Citations omitted]

So, you see, the constitution must really have said "Congress will make some laws depending on the circumstances to abridge the freedom of the press, or of speech." One decides what is legal or constitutional not by actually reading the Constitution, but by considering the circumstances! (The same reasoning was used by those opposed to the recent SCOTUS ruling against using race to determine school placement. You know, "yes, it says we can't do that, but oh, what about the circumstances?")

And notice that there is the same idea you heard from the neocons: we're at war, so you shouldn't say certain things. Remember people calling criticism of the war "treason?" It's all a matter of whose war it is.

Anyway, Ron Paul and John are examples of people we can call classical liberals.