The preamble to the US Constitution has been said to be many things. But, it seems to be generally neglected as having any real "force in government" design and operation.

My conviction is that it is actually a requirement under which all the remainder of the US Constitution is to be interpreted and executed.

1) Do you think the preamble to the US Constitution is more than introductory information; and if so, what?

2) Would the preamble to the US Constitution interpreted as a set of performance requirements for the remainder of the US Constitution give us a better government?

Just for the sake of reference, let's have the actual text of the Preamble here.



It seems clear to me that this sets up a series of reasons why the Constitution is being created. I doubt that any of these goals are very controversial. No reasonable person is against justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty. Arguments only come up about how to reach these goals. Many of these stated goals are rather vauge; it's not at all easy to determine the exact nature of justice or the general welfare.

For all these reasons, it seems to me that the Preamble, as admirable a statement as it is, can have no real legal force. I would also suggest that all Americans, with the exception of a trivial number of extremists who openly reject the prinicples of the Constitution, agree with the stated goals of the Preamble. The devil, as always, is in the details.

I agree with Victoria Silverwolf regarding the Preamble to the US Constitution, that:

However, that is exactly the point. To have a rational system, I believe one must have these things determined and well defined, as well as a procedure for ensuring that the following laws and structures created by the agents of government, with such a well defined set of requirement principles, are in compliance with them. And yes, most certainly here:

I just think it's time we meet this devil, and let the devil we know (and do define finally, no matter how difficult) be better than the devil we don't know (because we haven't yet defined "him", so let our public servants do it ad hoc). Otherwise, the action and goals of our governmental structures and laws will also be:

a condition I'd like to change and avoid!

There, are I believe, two more important issues that are relevant to speak about in this proposed concept for defining and using the Preamble to the US Constitution as a definite "requirement statement" for all of the rest of the US Constitution to be "interpreted under".

The first is that one does not necessarily need to know that a term is fully definable in words to know what it means, or allows, in a "requirement statement" for it to be useful. It can be very useful sometimes to know what the term does not mean and/or allow without having such "by words" definability.

I offer that the statement "to promote the general welfare", if interpreted as a requirement statement for the powers granted in the US Constitution, would not allow the promotion of "special interest's welfare" laws, as all powers not specifically given to the "US government by our Constitution" are reserved for the people or the states. So only the people and the states can have such "special interest's welfare" granting powers.

The second is that in all discourse, there are some terms that remain undefined, but can only be known "by experience". One can, for example, know what an apple is by experience; and, one can define what an apple is if the terms round, red and fruit are known. But, these last terms must be known by experience, or be defined by some simpler terms. Eventually, one ends up with some basic few things in any such effort that are only known by experience.

I'd allow this form of "vagueness", if one must call it that, in all "we the people" determinations of the proper powers to be granted in the US Constitution. I'd certainly allow it for all jury trial jurors.

In response to Lek.

I know but experience can be buried in complexity under the guise of a cause. Such as the experience some people may have working with the welfare system may very under whatever experiments that those people happened to be running. See, under different words in my perception you get politicians that for whatever reason gain a hypothesis on the situation and then conduct and experiment which of course has results. Problem is people wide and of course in the government the actually definition to what gave rise to such a hypothesis is not clearly laid out nor is the lifespan of that hypothesis effect when it goes run time as an "experiment" in terms of data recording and then this all pulls together in basically lacking clarity in the aftermath or reality as changed by such, just as no one really has a solid understanding of the current political reality in the ME from what we have done in Iraq, to just about anything you can put forward as an example I am sure. So basically I would fear fallacy and corruption coming to rain rather then sanity.

So this brings me to another point. Yes the constitution is indeed a mutable document or living document as some would word it, but more often then not in contemporary political struggles mass confusion exists and of course heavy bias, I would hate to see some particular perception that does not sit with all Americans for example coming to be buried into our constitution, for really I think it would just spread to making that document nothing more then that, some temporary political struggle rather a nation wide declaration of specific laws and rights and order for governmental function. So in that light, one administration bans gay marriage, and in the next people can only own one gun, again I feel its very much a dangerous Pandora’s box simply because I doubt a truly objective and as lacking in bias as possible committee would ever truly rule over any reconstruction or additions to such.

Such as the establishment clause, personally I don’t think you can read it any other way save congress cannot make law that is in regard to religion, though it is vague I think simply may be that way via reduction overall, just as I think applies to much of the constitution really.

1) Do you think the preamble to the US Constitution is more than introductory information; and if so, what?
It is an introduction and a pointer back to the history that led up to the adoption of the US Consitution. The history and the interpretation of the Constitution cannot begin in 1787, it goes much farther back. Those general phrases in the Preamble do contain intended scope and definitions that explain the choice and meaning of those words. Every single punctuation mark in the Constitution has a intented purpose. If you think the legality of US laws begins at Article 1, then I think you are naive. Those words have specific purposes and intent. The Founders knew quite clearly that their posterity would lay their work under a microscope to see what could be pulled and molded from it.


2) Would the preamble to the US Constitution interpreted as a set of performance requirements for the remainder of the US Constitution give us a better government?

I would contend that if the interpretation is otherwise (as I think it has been) it would bring peril upon our nation.

My "friends" tell me I must put into this discussion, for the record, the fact that in 1905, the US Supreme Court held (in Jacobson v. Massachussetts) that "the preamble is not a source of federal power or individuals rights. Rather all rights an powers are set out in the articles and amendmendts that follow (it) [sic}].

Unfortunatley, this does not change my mind.

Regards---Lek

In the case of federal power, I agree; however in the case of individual rights, I disagree. The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of individual rights. It is really a basic list of rights to emphasize the limits of federal power.

The following is meant to be a general reply to "history" and "founders intent(s)", and "the present reality" verse both of these, as they occur in several of the preceding replies to this topic:

I asserted initially that the overall theme(s) of our Constitutional style of govt. vs British rule "began" O/A 1787. That is meant to be only a rough "time marker" that can be moved 50 years in either direction without changing anything I wish to pursue. There was not a complete transition in meanings, and indeed ours is still ongoing, "from then to now".

Many of the meanings "then" were the "British rule meanings", natural as folks were mostly thinking of themselves still as British citizens. However, I see us all changing, and the meanings "we wish" changing as well, such as rights of blacks, native Americans and women re citizenry. (I don't at all mind being naive at any time by the way.)

The problem I have with the founder's intent is that there are too many of them, and too much was done "behind closed doors", "anonymously" via pamphleteers, and in hidden political positioning "for special advantage". A single "founding fathers" reference that we can use was/is literally not really known as such, nor is it yet truly known, for there are still too many different versions about.

Next, my experience with "history" is that it deals mainly with what is/was written and is now available. What I know of "recent truths" is not at all reflected in our recent writings and "emerging history of it/them". So why should it have been any different then, "with the founding fathers". (I am very glad we have history, by the way, as an exploration and an honorable and useful academic discipline; I just don't think it is a better guiding light than "what we the people want now", no mater how difficult that is to determine.)

Finally, it seems to me that our present "Constitutional reality", as the "common people", out of power, and apparently with no vested interest except the general welfare, seem to more often than not, believe it to be very true that our Constitutional practices are different by a good measure from their personal individual readings and desires for what the Constitution says. (I have that feeling myself and have a strong desire to find out what is true and best.)

Regards---Lek

Thomas Jefferson's quote still holds true none the less. For me it puts to rest the silly and untenable notion that the Constitution is a "living document". The only resemblence of truth in that is the ability to amend the Constutition. Nevertheless, each amendment stands for the intent at the time it was added to the Constitution. There is no molding and bending of meanings. People who attempt to say that the founders couldn't have forseen this or that, are naively thinking that the Founders would have considered those this or thats consequential. All the social issues of today existed in one form or another then. The character of Man was well known and well understood then, and even prior to our Founders. This is what they based our governing foundations on, not passing issue that only affected any particular group of people at a particular time. They knew that Man by nature will corrupt and be corrupted, and that was sufficient enough to make the principles in the Constitution timeless.

And the 9th Amendment deals with the fact that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of individual rights.


1) Do you think the preamble to the US Constitution is more than introductory information; and if so, what?

I believe that the preamble is just that... a preamble:

I believe the following topic, started by The Founders Intent:



also in this forum has a lot of stuff similar to this topic and I recommend it for perusal.---Lek