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.