Is the Constitution's Preamble binding?

D

deanf

New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/quote]

I'm in a little debate on another board about whether or not the preamble to the Constitution is binding. Does it delegate any powers to the government? My position is that it's merely an introductory; it 'splains the reasons for writing the Constitution, and grants no powers.

Does anyone know of any court cases where the preamble has been affirmed as being binding?

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
The only place that i'm familiar with the legal use of the Preamble of the Constitution is concerning the statement "We the People..."

In Jean Edward Smith's book, "John Marshal: Definer of a Nation" he discusses Patrick Henry's abhorrence of the statement, "We, The People,"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What right had (the Philidelphia Convention) to say, We, the People?

Who authorized them to speak the language, We, the People, instead of We, the States?... That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear... The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.[/quote]

Clearly, he was attacking the making of a centralize government, and not the Preamble itself. But still the point is made that even then, the wording of the Preamble was considered important.

As with many things, i belive the reverence and difinitive nature of the words of the Preamble (along with the rest of the Constitution) have lost their spirit.

For example, the words "WE, the People" have clear meaning. THE PEOPLE. Not the states, not congress, not the military, THE PEOPLE.

These are the same people, or persons if you like, that are enumerated in many places in the Constitution. But we all know that in the Second Amendment, The People, is actually the States (sic).

We, the People, has meaning. Therefore, it follows that the entire Preamble has meaning. Not to the point to which it assigns powers. But to the fact that it gives context to the rest of the Constitution. It instructs us as to whom is refered to in the Constitution. It enables us to define who holds the powers outlined by the Constitution. It embodies a new nation. It references an old nation.

We, the People.

Your damn right its binding.

------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
No, it's not...not the way it's being claimed today. The most common claim is that the federal government is NOT restricted to regulation of its own property, its own affairs, and "interstate commerce." Because the preamble mentions securing the "general welfare" in passing, it was meant to grant the federal government the right to pass any law which contributes to the general welfare. If you can convince a majority that gun control or the abolition of the 5th Amendment, for example, "contributes to the general welfare" of the nation, then it's perfectly Constitutional. Keep in mind that in Germany they convinced perfectly nice, normal folks that the establishment of secret police and the use of torture on innocents were "for the general welfare."

Also keep in mind that this interpretation would mean that that preamble gives powers to the federal government even though the preamble NEVER MENTIONS giving power to the federal government.

Finally, remember that this interpretation not only requires you to believe that (it doesn't matter if it doesn't mention it, that's what it says because I said so) but also that the preamble directly contradicts the article which lays out the powers of the legislative branch. IOW, this interpretation says those powers are basically limitless (since you can convince half the population that almost anything is "for the public welfare") according to the preamble but extremely limited and narrowly defined according to the actual article--so which one is right? Why would the founders have written the document so that we had to guess that powers were being delegated on one page but were told explicitly on the next? Ockham's Razor makes it so unlikely as to be less possible than a Simpson-Goldberg-Brown family reunion, in other words.

Oh, yeah.....YMMV, if you have difficulty reading.
 
Yeah, I have been embroiled in a gun-control "debate" with an apparently literate, articulate person who basically uses the Preamble to completely nullify the rest of the Constitution, esp, the 2A. Don't fall for it.
 
What's more important is...

The Preamble to the Bill Of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Joe




------------------
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top