The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States (part V )

As it stands now the government of the States are subordinate to the central government that they set up when they all agreed to abide by the Constitution written when this nation was founded. We know this from the fact that the laws and Constitutions of the States are subject to scrutiny from the U.S. Constitution.

This is to determine whether or not the laws of the States or the Constitutions of the State are perceived to be in conflict to the U.S. Constitution. If this conflict exists as argued then it is the State that must repeal that law or section of their Constitution.

This conflict will always be seen in the area of domestic affairs. This would result in the need of equal treatment of all individuals in the nation, each State being subject to a single solution to any and all issues. In this system alien and citizens are subject to the same rules of law thus all benefit.

Now, if the federal government was subordinate unto the States there would be no need for them to repeal. The seemingly conflict would remain but the State law would be the determinate law to be enforced in that particular State. This would allow each State to determine for itself how to deal with any domestic issue without federal government interference.

This would result in unequal treatment of individuals in the nation but the need of equal treatment of individuals in each State. This introduces the concept of choice for solutions. In order for this concept to work the need of tolerance of all the States as well as of the U.S. Government must be exhibited by all.

It would also require that respect be exhibited for the right of the States to make these choices. And this must apply even if some might disagree to the point of intolerance with the choices of others. In this system citizens would be the beneficiaries of the law.

Both ideas presented here would still be consistent with the ideology of both sides as to the intent of the founders of this nation. The primary difference being how the individual person seeks to be treated by his government.

By the first concept he knows he should be treated the same as everyone else in the nation. And with this the concept of borders within the nation ceases to exist in time. This would eliminate the idea of the immigration and emigration and all that the words imply.

By the second concept a person will need to choose how he is to be treated by his government because he knows that the laws of each State may and probably will treat him differently. And for this he must have the right to emigrate and immigrate as he chooses within the States.

Government of the people by the first concept, if we are to believe history, must always lead to a dictatorship of a people. The reason being is that a majority of persons will become united under a single belief and that belief will be dictated by the government and forced upon the minority of persons in regards to issues. This is because laws do have a moral effect upon the psyche of the individual. This concept has been declared by the science of Psychology. We can see that effect in today's society as well as in history.

Government by the second conception, if we are to believe history, can never fulfill its promise of the concept of choices. That is because some issues only allow two choices. And one choice will always be seen as an intolerable choice. And when this occurs one side will impose their views on the other side with the use of force if necessary. Once this occurs power becomes centralized thus the power structure becomes inverted. This seems to be an inevitability when man rules over himself.

Tolerance of ideas and ways, it seems, has a short time span and is very impatient in man. Self righteousness seems to be the dominant rule of men and seeks to impose that rule on all. Ideas, it seems, are only tolerated when those ideas allow for many choices but become intolerable when allowed but two choices. I guess the morality within each of us demands this of ourselves and of others.

Right and wrong seems to be the dominant idea and every other idea must subordinate itself to this moral concept which results in being very judgmental. This is opposed by the concept of positive and negative which would be less judgmental about things and people.

Liberty and equality seems to be incompatible with each other. In the seeking of the one we must sacrifice the other. In the seeking of liberty we must slowly accept, voluntarily and consensually, the burden of self responsibility. In the seeking of equality we must slowly place, by force, the burden of responsibility on others.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States (part IV )

I have never been an advocate of the principle of “The end justifies the means.” We have always been a nation that those who use this principle should be penalized in some manner. In fact the very idea of the need for laws in this nation rejects this principle. It is an immoral principle of getting the things you want for yourself or for what you want for others. And it makes for bad laws when this principle applies.


The use of coercion or the use force are but two examples of a person using this principle to justify their ends. Bribery and blackmail describes another couple of means used that we consider as unjustifiable means to an end. Wars and acts of self defense are probably the most basic acts that allow this principle to be used justifiably. For they allow the use of force to achieve their ends.

Governments are the instruments of legalized force. It was George Washington that defined government in this manner. I defer to his definition of government, not because it supports my viewpoint of government but because I consider him an expert on the use and the meaning of force. His expertise comes from his life as an army officer and as a slave owner. No government, in his mind, can act, whether as a Master or as a servant, without the application of force. Since he was our first President then he knew that his every act, as President, was to be an act of force.

It is the application of force that denies another of his right of life. It is the application of force that denies another of his liberty. It is the application of force that denies another of his opportunity for happiness. And it makes no difference if that act of force is used by an individual or it is used by a government.

If there was no need of the use of force, governments would have no legitimate purpose for existence. It is governments that determined a society as being civilized. Anarchy would be the rule of the land in a society where the use of force did not exist therefore governments are not necessary.

Yet if governments are necessary this brings up another dilemma. If the use of force is wrong does that justify the second application of the use of force to combat a first application of a use of force? And this brings up a second moral principle.

It brings up the principle of “two wrongs do not make a right.” Does necessity justify the use of force? Does the overwhelming desire for a civilized society justify the use of force? What issue is so important as to justify the use of force to resolve it?

There are those that declare that the War between the States resolved the question of slavery in this nation. Yet the founding fathers added the amendment clause into the Constitution for the purpose of resolving these type of issues. Was there any attempt to use that means to resolve the issue prior to the use of war to resolve the issue? If not, then I can only ask, why not?

If, as the left would claim, the Constitutional intent was to insure domestic tranquility of the individual I can only ask this question. How is the use of war and the loss of 600000 lives of individuals to resolve a domestic issue insuring that tranquility when a more peaceful and more tranquil means was provided for them to resolve issues?

To me, it is one thing to use war as a means to resolve an issue when there is no other means to resolve them. It is quite another thing to use war as a solution to problems when there are other more peaceful means available to use and they were not used. This would be a situation where the principle of two wrongs do not make a right definitely applies.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States (part III)

A good friend asked me the question of what other type of hierarchy of power was there other than an hierarchy of federal, state, county, city government where the federal government is the dominant government and the other governments are subordinate governments? This is a good question because it is the hierarchy of power used by every nation in the world now including our own. We can find this hierarchy as a basis of power going back thousands of years.


Our nation was not founded on this basis of hierarchy though. We were founded on the basis that the States, collectively and individually, retained self rule. With this retention of power we can see why our new nation was considered a new experiment in governing. It is also why the fathers were considered as liberals in the classical sense of the definition of the word.  It was a brand new idea of the way to govern.

From this, the hierarchy was established of the federal government being subordinate to the collective of the States and the county and city governments being subordinate to their respectful individual State. But in order to understand how this was accomplished a person must clear his mind of the biased thoughts of the traditional hierarchy. Once a person can do this they can see how radically the founding fathers changed the way of governing.



The founding fathers set up a way of governing that divided foreign affairs and domestic affairs. And it was divided this way based on the idea that each State was a self ruled State. Thus what constitutes foreign affairs and domestic affairs is determined by what they would be to a State either on an individual level or on a collective level.

In regards to domestic affairs each of the States would be the dominant power. Thus we see a hierarchy of power in terms of domestic affairs as being State, county and city. In regards to national foreign affairs power was given to the federal government with the indirect consent of the States through the Senate which has sole “advice and consent” powers. This arrangement applies in other acts of the President also such as the appointment of federal judges. Thus we have an hierarchy of power with the federal government being subordinated to the collective of the States.  this is also why the Constitution gave the State governments the power to chose their Senators rather than to the people.

We can see this arrangement in another area also. It is found within the Constitution when it addresses the idea of amendments. While the federal government may seek greater power through amendments those amendments must first get direct consent of the collective of States. Through the Constitutional conventions means of amendments we can see that the States do not need the consent of the federal government either directly nor indirectly for it to be binding upon the federal government.

A sidenote:
One more issue that can be seen in this viewpoint is the issue of the conscience vs the will of another in regards to where power lies. To declare that the will of another is the determinate factor it must be seen as having direct or indirect consent of the other on an particular act. In other words, a person may rule but only by the direct consent of his constituents. Once he has this consent he may act upon his own conscience in the making of those rules as long as he acts within the powers as given him by the Constitution.

This is supported by the fact that he takes an oath of obedience to the Constitution rather than taking an oath of obedience to his constituents. This would be further evidence to the fact that declaring our form of government a democracy is misleading. In a form of government called a democracy that person chosen would be taking an oath of obedience to his constituents.

Back on track, with this arrangement settled that left only one other area to be settled, interstate commerce and the Constitution reveals that the federal government can regulate that. Basically what this did was deny any State the right to regulate any commerce once it crossed outside of its borders and denied any State the right to regulate any commerce prior to entering into its borders. It essentially, by concept, created a free trade agreement with all of the States.

This was significant in the light of how many wars were fought in the world as a result of regulations of inter-State travel of commerce among the nations of the world. Seen in this light we can see that the primary reason of uniting the States as a single nation with a central government was to address the issue of the possibility of war, both on the domestic as well as on foreign level.

Through this arrangement, the people considered themselves as citizens of their respectful States. Through this arrangement, people could cross borders without the need of permission to enter another State. Through this arrangement people could emigrate from one State to another and become a citizen of that State only by setting up residence there. There was no need of visas nor was there any need to apply for citizenship.

It is through this arrangement that we can understand the value of why free independent republics such as Texas would seek entry into this type of governing. It would take a mighty powerful argument for me to believe that Texas who had fought a war to gain their independence would seek entry into an union where it would then lose their independence. But that is a question only a person who holds to an ideology that promotes the traditional hierarchy of power would need to answer.

And it is this, that as one friend has said, that has libertarians angry with President Lincoln. It was the Civil war that resulted in an inversion of this established hierarchy. They feel that this inversion of power was illegally attained. They feel that if there is to be any inversion of power that it should be accomplished through the Constitutional way which is by direct State consent.  And when you think about it they have a valid point.

In conclusion, this viewpoint of the hierarchy of power would support the interpretation of the preamble as viewed in the first part of this series. And it is this viewpoint that defines the Right in regards to political philosophy in this nation. It has nothing to do with extremism as the right has been accused of by many.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States (part II)

As I said in the first post in regards to the Constitution there is an ideology that opposes the viewpoint presented there. So, let's take a look at how they would have to see the Constitution as they feel was the intent of the founders of this Nation. What changes would have to be made in regards to understanding of the Preamble in order to be consistent with that ideology?


First of all we could no longer substitute the word State in the place of the word People. Yet we would have to perceive it a manner that would still reflect a dual purpose. It would still have to be presented so as to present a more specific manner of Constitutional interpretation. Thus we have the following.

We can no longer say “We, the States,” without corrupting the intent of the founding fathers but we could say “We the citizens,”. We can also refer it as saying “We the people who rule” without corrupting the meaning behind the phrase since it is the citizens who elect those who make up the governments of each state. And those representative are bound to comply by the will of the groups of individuals who elected them. As such those representatives act in the name of the people rather than in the name of their respective states.

This was assured when an amendment was passed that individuals were to be elected by the people rather than appointed by their respective state governments to the house of the U.S. Senate. But one problem is that this amendment was not in the Constitution at the time that it was ratified thus this could not have reflected the intent of the founders. And it would have been inconsistent with the intent of the first Constitution where only the states were represented in the U. S. Legislature.

We can now expand that phrase to include the second phrase. Thus, we have, “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union of peoples,.” From this we must remember that this constitution was intended on replacing the old constitution of the Articles of Confederation. Therefore the intent was to declare that this constitution was an improvement over the last which they considered as flawed thus declaring that this was a more perfect document of rule of government. It places power of rule in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the existing governments.

This would appear as being an oxymoron. This would be declaring that the people govern the government that governs the people. This may be an idyllic form of governing but do we live in a idyllic state of existence? If not, then we'd have to say that such an arrangement was impossible. The only form of governing that would realistically be depicted from this is anarchy and I don't believe anyone would say that this was the intent of the founders.

Further expansion gives us this. “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union of peoples, establish justice for the individuals of this nation,”. We must recognize this from the fact that the founding fathers thought that the Crown was not treating the people of the colonies in a just manner. The Declaration of Independence reveals some of the grievances that the individuals had with the Crown.

This may have some validity but I have never heard it being taught as to reflect this mindset. To see it along this mindset would necessitate a revision of history as taught when I was taught the history of this nation.

The “insure domestic tranquility” phrase would then be written as “insure domestic tranquility among the individuals,”. This phrase was included without consideration of averting something that seemed to be a common occurrence in Europe, wars between the States over there. As set up in this manner the Supreme Court would be an unbiased independent party of any dispute brought before it.

This would be saying that the founders were setting up a government that insured a crime free society. Does anyone really believe that is possible? Now, I'll grant you that socialists are promoting an idea that would insure this or at least they believe it would. And based upon some domestic policies of some Presidents there are some in this nation that do believe it. 

But it is hard for me to accept that this was the intent of the founders. This has been seen as the ideal form of society for thousands of years and never has succeeded when it was tried to be implemented. The Bible even depicts the apostles as attempting to implement this type of society.

To “provide for the common defense” phrase is pretty obvious that it was meant to be thought of in respect to the States. Its intent being to declare to all foreign nations that an attack upon one State was an attack on every State. It recognized the strength of the foreign States and the weakness of each independent State at this time and saw the value of unity for this purpose.

I need not revise this because, as I stated, the intent is obvious. And to revise it would create confusion rather than understanding.

The rest of the preamble deals with domestic policy. It was to declare that the President was to pursue a domestic policy that was to promote the general welfare of the individuals, and secure the liberty for them and for their posterity in accordance to the will of the people. This was to preserve the perception that the people governs the government that governs over them.

This understanding justifies the idea that the Constitution is a “living” document for while the positions of government does not change with each generation, the individuals of the nation does. Thus the intent of the meaning of the Constitution can be changed along with it. And I have heard persons use this type of argument in promoting their ideology. It is from this concept that the word democracy is often the word used to describe the form of government that we have today.

This differs from the previous understanding in that states still exist from generation to generation therefore the intent remains the same as it did when those states accepted the Constitution.  it is from this understanding that is the foundation of the "original intent" concept.  It must follow then that the use democracy to describe the form of government is a misleading term.

One concept promotes the Constitution as being a contract between the existing people and the government.  the other concept presents the Constitution as being a contract between the States.

the question now becomes which understanding best exemplifies the intent of the founders? It is this question that is the foundation of debate between the political factions in this nation today.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

"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."

The author of the Wikipedia article on the Preamble describes it in the following manner.

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. The phrase 'We the people' epitomizes the United States government's republican form."

If this is so then the first thing that needs to be recognized is the fact is that the founding fathers who gathered together were representatives of their respective independent States. Thus, we know that they were speaking on behalf of the States and not of the individual persons of their respective State as promoted by one ideology. We can know this because the union they refer to is an union of States not an union of people. The name that they chose for this new nation is proof of that.

While I might agree with the author in regards to the fact that the first phrase epitomizes the fact that the government is of a republican form, it says more than that. The word people is also a collective term. Thus, the word State may be used synonymously in its place also. So, that phrase serves two purposes. In applying this term we can use a more specific manner for the interpretation of the Constitution of the U.S. Constitution.

We can now say “We, the States,” and do so without corrupting the intent of the founding fathers. We can also refer it as saying “We the people who rule” without corrupting the meaning behind the phrase since it is the people who make up the governments of each state that are the representatives of their respective States and act in the name of their States. It also complies with the political definition of the word State which each State was at the time of the Constitution's writing. It would also recognize that each State was intended to be self ruling. By its ratification, each State was assured of remaining a self ruling State.

We can now expand that phrase to include the second phrase. Thus, we have, “We, the States, in order to form a more perfect union of States,." From this we must remember that this constitution was intended on replacing the old constitution of the Articles of Confederation. Therefore the intent to was declare that this constitution was an improvement over the last which they considered as flawed thus declaring that this was a more perfect document of rule of government.

Further expansion gives us this. “We the States, in order to form a more perfect union of States, establish justice for the States,”. We must recognize this from the fact that the founding fathers thought that the Crown was not treating the colonies in a just manner. The Declaration of Independence reveals some of the grievances that the colonies had with the Crown.

The “insure domestic tranquility” phrase would then be written as “insure domestic tranquility among the States,”. This phrase was included in hopes of averting something that seemed to be a common occurrence in Europe, wars between the States over there. That was the primary purpose of the establishment of the Supreme Court. It was set up to be the arbitrator of any domestic disputes that might lead to a war between any of the States such a the Civil war that occurred later. As set up in this manner the Supreme Court would be an unbiased independent party of any dispute brought before it.

To “provide for the common defense” phrase is pretty obvious that it was meant to be thought of in respect to the States. Its intent being to declare to all foreign nations that an attack upon one State was an attack on every State. It recognized the strength of the foreign States and the weakness of each independent State at this time and saw the value of unity for this purpose.

The rest of the preamble deals with foreign policy. It was to declare that the President was to pursue a foreign policy that was to promote the general welfare of the States, and secure the liberty for them and for their posterity in accordance to the will of the States. This was to assure that each State remained self ruled.

It is from this understanding we can see the the intent of the States who had just fought a war for the purpose of becoming self ruled and wanting to remain self ruled. To say that these States fought for independence then to turn around and subordinate themselves to another government would be inconsistent.

It is this understanding that allows us to see how the fathers remained consistent in regards to self rule under this constitution as it was declared under the previous one. It would take one hell of an argument to persuade me that this understanding was not the intent of the founding fathers as well as the States when they accepted this constitution.

Our Vote For a Master or Servant. Choose Accordingly

The interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the biggest divide of this nation today. It is the foundational basis for partisan politics. When there is more than one way to interpret the Constitution at least one interpretation of it will compromise the principles of its intent for existence. This can only be called political ideology.

When the people are ruled over by those persons who adheres to this misinterpretation only one thing can be understood. It must be understood that the people are being ruled by the men of government who seek to possess absolute power and authority over the people. This is always the inevitable end result whenever political ideology trumps any and every constitution.

There are two paths that men who seek absolute power can take in order to possess the absolute power over the people they want to rule. One path would require gaining the trust of the people and the other path is by instilling fear into the people. The only difference being is that one possesses the authority as well as the power to rule in an absolute manner while the other path is the path of power without the authority to rule.

The latter path is the usual path of those we consider and identify as dictators and violence is their usual trademark to gain their power and for dissent once power is possessed. The former path uses laws not only to gain their power but also, when necessary, to stifle minority dissent. Force is the common denominator of both paths. The only difference is the intent of the use of force and whether or not force is authorized.

The path of those who seek to gain the trust of the people in order to gain absolute power will adhere to the principle that the government is the servant of the people rather than their master. They will seek to enact laws that makes it appear to be so. It is by focusing on these type of laws that results in the gaining of the trust needed for absolute power.

The path of those who seek absolute power will promote themselves as the protectors of the people rather than the enforcers of the laws they enact. In order to create this perception they must create an enemy, within a society, in the minds of the people. This enemy must be promoted as having greater power than they deserve to have. In creating this perceived enemy in the minds of the people, the people will then become dependent upon those who seek absolute rule for protection from this enemy.

In a nation that uses a democratic method of choosing their leaders one more factor must be considered. Those who seek absolute power over the people must convince enough followers to accept their political ideology as a valid basis of governing in order to be elected. This would mean that the constitution of a nation, if a nation already possesses one, must be presented and accepted as being something other than it was intended to be.

A written constitution is a document meant to recognize the need of government and to give limited powers and authority of rule to those who occupy the seats of government they were elected to as defined in that constitution. That is its sole purpose and intent of existence. If that wasn't its sole purpose and intent absolute power of government rule over the people would be the only conclusion that a person could come to.

With this limitation of power and authority as a given then it must be acknowledged When those persons enact laws outside of the powers and authority declared in that constitution they no longer are ruling over the people with authority but only ruling by the power of their position. This can only be considered as an abuse of power and a violation of their oath of office. When this occurs those who are ruled have no obligation to abide by that law thus has the constitutional authority of civil disobedience.

In conclusion, those who view government as our master will seek to have few laws enacted because they wish to rule over their own lives as much as possible. Those who view government as our servant will seek as many laws enacted as necessary to be perceived and treated as if the people ruled over their government.

So, we will be voting in a couple of weeks and we will be voting for a master or a servant. The first question a voter must ask himself before heading into that booth is whether or not he will be voting for self-rule of his own life or voting for his life being ruled over by the man he is voting for. The States have already lost their right of self rule.

The Griper Has Ressurected

Well, the ol' gray mare got me back to California safe and sound. Have to admit that I had a great time. Saw some friends and family that I haven't seen in years. Also met some new members of the family. And I'm already making plans for my next visit which should add to this delightful experience.

Being back, the ol' Griper already has a couple of ideas for future posts which should be up in a few days. Seems funny to be thinking along these lines of thought once again, yet it is a good feeling too. My typing finger is eager to get on the keyboard again.

Below are a few of pictures that I took on the way back. In one town of Colorado the deer actually are a part of the town as shown in the first couple of pics. At dusk you can spot herds of deer in the fields around the town. In fact the deer are so numerous that if a person did not know better they would think that the people in that town were raising deer as they do domestic livestock.

In the third pic you'll see a place in So. Dakota where you can still buy a cup of coffee for 5 cents. The place is appropriately named Al's Oasis and sits on the banks of the Missouri River. Being an avid coffee drinker I had to take advantage of this price along with a very good buffalo burger while there.

The last pic is a bit fuzzy but couldn't help adding it. Its a pic taken in a museum I visited in Colorado. For you young'uns who may not know what it is I can only say that it is something that is a big part of our history. It is where an operator sat to connect people to other persons over the telephone lines back in the good ol' days.

Hope you all enjoy them.

Look closely for the deer walking across the sidewalk.

Time Flies By So Very Quickly.

Well folks, it is the end of a beautiful vacation time. I will be heading back to California Wednesday morn with a few stops along the way to see friends and a couple of relatives. In trust of ol' betsy being a good mare I hope to take a more prolonged time getting back too.

Before I leave though, I aim to take part in the planning of a class reunion here. Don't ask which anniversary it will be because I never learned how to count that high in school. I will be seeing classmates that I haven't seen in many a day though.