Okay, lets have a Constitution Study and then next thread, a Bill of Rights Study

U

USP45usp

Moderator
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

To begin, the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, 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.
Click to expand...

To me, this said, "to be free to live as we wish and to go as far as we can without the interference of any government".

Just a summary, I will get into it later, it's late, I've got to get to work tomorrow. But just to start it off and if the people that have been on the other threads will come in and do this, then I think that more understanding will be had by all, even me.

Wayne
 
To me, this said, "to be free to live as we wish and to go as far as we can without the interference of any government".
Click to expand...

What?!?!?! Who are you, the Supreme Court??? It didn't say that at all, it SAID:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, 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.
Click to expand...

That's ALL it said. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Hate to be the bearer of bad news... The Preamble is not law. It is a preamble, a reason for the existence of that which follows.

While the Court has used the Preamble to interpret what parts of the Constitution might imply or say, it is not, by itself, Law.
 
Damn people. This is a Constitutional study. The assine comments from Frank is to be expected. I am just started this from word one. I know that the Preamble isn't law, but it's still important to the entire document. If you wish to make fun of the Constitution and the wanting to have a discussion of it, then fine.

I'm trying to have a valid and thoughtful conversation here. Frank I know believes in whatever he's told.

Make fun all you wish. But even Frank has admitted that he doesn't understand the Constitution, refuses to read it, and is only concerned with common law, constitutional or not.

Wayne
 
I agree to that. In my words, 'we want to be a free people, and while recognizing that a gov't is necessary and vital in some situtations, we want it to be as limited as possible'.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
Click to expand...

Two things....first....Wayne, go back to the other thread and lets clear up the question I raised. Second, please explain to me, constitutionally speaking, how something can be "more perfect". I don't believe there were degrees of perfection in colonial times anymore than there are now.
 
More perfect, in this sense, means to strive for something better than what they currently had.
Click to expand...

Well that doesn't make sense.....was that like Colonial Ebonics? "More perfect?" Why didn't they just say "More better" if they were going to throw the rules of good diction out (of) the window?
 
Frank, I did. Like I said, I'm slow.

Dasmi has it right. It was supposed to be a more perfect Union then what we had under englands rule.

Like we (or some) like to say here, it was the start of taking the higher road.

Wayne
 
I think the Preamble is too federalist in nature. It says "We the People of the United States" which is a false federalist vision. The people of the US did not establish and ordain the Constitution, the States did (or the people of the States). There is a big difference and it will come up over and over if we are going to study this stuff. The Constitution did not and would not have passed a popular vote by "the people of the United States". It was drafted by State delegates, and it was ratified by We the States.

Also, it is easy to take the part about "general welfare" and view it as if the US has broad general powers to do whatever is "good" or for the "general welfare". I believe the proper interpretation, though, is that the US is not supposed to play favorites but rather exercise its limited powers for the general welfare.

One more point ... many people say there is no such thing a collective rights, and that the US Constitution doesn't refer to collective rights ... but I believe that the right to establish and ordain a Constitution is an example of a collective right. In a State, the right to establish and ordain a Constitution is a collective right of the people of that State; and in the Union, the right to establish and ordain a Constitution is a collective right of the States.

Oh ... and I think the "more perfect Union" was intended to be more perfect than the Confederation under the Articles of Confederation.
 
Hugh is correct in that the "more perfect Union" was in reference to the Articles of Confederation. To that end, the Constitution does form a more perfect union than what had went before. The sentence construction was meant to reflect that and is grammatically correct.

The "We the People... do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America" can be argued as Hugh does, but... Of particular note however, the State Governments did not vote on acceptance of the Constitution. The peoples of the separate States in Conventions, ratified the Constitution, bypassing the State Legislatures altogether (Art. VII).

To that end, it was the People and not the States that ratified the new government.

Wayne, I don't know what you thought that I meant by my opening remarks, but you clearly took them in some derogatory fashion. I meant those remarks to simply express the idea that the preamble is not Law. You wouldn't believe how many people actually think that it is part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Just like they think the Declaration of Independence is some sort of Law (which you know... it isn't). I meant nothing more and nothing less.
 
Just a point....

It didn't say "We the People of the United States"...it said "We the People of THESE United States"...

Small, but important difference. We are a nation of separate states, bound together as a Nation, not one nation divided up into states for ease of governing.

And yes, the preamble is just a declaration of WHY we need a government, and what kind of government they were looking for...one that was more perfect than the government under the Articles of Confederation.
 
The "We the People... do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America" can be argued as Hugh does, but... Of particular note however, the State Governments did not vote on acceptance of the Constitution. The peoples of the separate States in Conventions, ratified the Constitution, bypassing the State Legislatures altogether (Art. VII).

To that end, it was the People and not the States that ratified the new government.
Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you. That is a most important distinction and will probably keep coming up. The word "State" can refer to a State Legislature, or it can refer to the people of a State. The US is not empowered by the State Legislatures but by the people of the States. But then again, the individual States did not have a democratic popular vote on whether or not to ratify the Constitution, they instead used Republican principles whereby they authorized delegates to decide whether or not their State should ratify the Constitution.

Constitutional amendments may be ratified by either the people of a State or by a State Legislature, so I suppose one might argue that the State Legislatures may have control. Also, the people cannot call for a Constitutional convention, but the State Legislatures can. The State Legislatures are an important player.

But the point I hoped to make was that the constitution was not ratified by a popular vote of the people of the US, as if the US is one big State, but rather it was ratified by the States, with each State getting one vote. The way Madison explained it at the Virginia Ratification Convention was that "We the People of the United States" means the people as fifty sovereignties i.e. the States.
 
You see people. You can't even get past the damn preamble and you're already bickering over what "is" is. That is why there are professionals in law that make a career of this stuff. What you believe and what you think you saw is irrelevant too the laws as they are written today.
Come on professors. Anyone here that is willing to take your interpreations of the constitution and use it for their case defense need to have their heads examined. As a matter of fact I believe 51-50 is the term of those people
 
I see no bickering. We are discussing the parties to the US Constitution.

When Virginia considered the proposed US Constitution, Patrick Henry was very concerned that the Preamble began "We the People". He said:

The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.
Click to expand...

And Madison explained:

There are a number of opinions; but the principal question is, whether it be a federal or consolidated government. In order to judge properly of the question before us, we must consider it minutely in its principal parts. I conceive myself that it is of a mixed nature; it is in a manner unprecedented; we cannot find one express example in the experience of the world. It stands by itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
Click to expand...
 
more perfect
Click to expand...

I think that it was worded that way, because they knew that no matter what they did, it could never be perfect. That they were writing this the best they could to make the union perfect, but they knew that things probably would never get to perfect.
 
"more perfect"

"I think that it was worded that way, because they knew that no matter what they did, it could never be perfect. That they were writing this the best they could to make the union perfect, but they knew that things probably would never get to perfect."

Yes, that, but there's another historical context to consider, and that's what I consider to the real point here: The 13 colonies at the time of the writing of the Constitution were already semi-independent and yet were loosely bound under a prior agreement, the Articles of Confederation. That was an admirable first stab at a framework where the 13 states could both remain independent of each other and yet have a common framework for interaction. It had some flaws, and the Constitution was drafted largely to correct those flaws. Hence, it was to be "more perfect" than its predecessor.

--------------------
Added:
Another thought along those lines: The word "perfect" is one that has changed meanings from the time that the Constitution was written until now. Nowadays, "perfect" means "flawless". Back then, the meaning was more like "complete", as in nothing more was needed, but there was no implied claim to flawlessness. Again, that has ramifications here. To get the gist of this today, you would really need to think: "more complete", as in it filled in some of the gaps that the predecessor document had.
 
Last edited:
"You see people. You can't even get past the damn preamble and you're already bickering over what "is" is."

Personally, I don't see all that much bickering as much as I see a rational discussion that a few hotheads are trying to disrupt.

Here we have a forum thread dedicated to discussing the U.S. Constitution, and yet we have someone attempting to quash that discussion as being too devisive. Uh, No. It isn't too devisive. If you want devisiveness and bickering, check your history, and learn about how devisive the Constitutional Convention was, where they hashed out this thing to begin with. Now THAT's devisive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top