Sunday, October 24, 2010

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

Constitution Preamble

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.

17 comments:

Lista said...

Oh, It Looks Like it was Part II, not Part I, that I Failed to read. Since there are no Comments, I Wonder if other People have Missed it too.

Once again, I Think my Goal will be to Only Read Half of it at a Time, since it is Late and I do Need to Go to Bed Soon. This Time I Got as Far as the "Insure Domestic Tranquility" phrase, which I may want to Write more on Later.

"This would appear as being an oxymoron."

The Definition of Oxymoron Includes the Words "Seemly Self-Contradictory" and then when you Added the Word "Appear" to your Sentence, Griper, this Added even more Uncertainty.

The Entire Concept of the Constitution was the Balancing of Powers, so that no Single Branch of Government was Given all of the Power. Likewise, there was a Portion of the Power Given to the People as well, in the Form of Voting. The Fact that the Power was Balanced, rather than Giving all of it to One Party or the Other is not an Oxymoron, but an Expression of Balance.

The Entire Paragraph that Begins with the above Quoted Sentence does not Make Logical Sense.

"I have never heard it being taught as to reflect this mindset."

That's Odd because I hear it all the Time. Even Tonight at our Tea Party, I heard someone say, "We the People; That's Us.', and no one Expressed any Disagreement with the Statement and there were most Definitely People from your Era Present.

Lista said...

In Order to Respond to the "Domestic Tranquility" Phrase, I'm Probably going to have to Look up the Word "Domestic" in the Dictionary, but I'm too Tired Tonight to do it, so I'm going to Skip Over that Paragraph and Perhaps also the Next One. Maybe I'll be Addressing that Tomorrow.

The Question that is Going through my Mind Right now, though, is whether or not a Single Document can be About Both Citizens Rights and Powers and also the Rights and Powers of the States and Not Only about One or the Other and I'm Thinking that it can be about Both and to not Allow this as a Possibility is again a form of Black and White Thinking.

"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."

Could it be that the Original Constitution was a Contract between the States, but the Amendments were a Contract between the the People and the Government? And what is so Wrong with that?

Also, sense this whole Thing was a Political Experiment, does it Really Make any Sense to Assume that the Original Intent, or shall I say Hypothesis, should be Set in Stone? If the Original Experiment was a Failure Leading to the Need for Amendments in Order to Make it Work, then Perhaps a New Hypothesis is Needed, for that is how "Experiments" Work.

The Griper said...

lista,
part 1 of this series is the interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers based upon the ideology of the poltical right.

part 2 of this series is the interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers based on the ideology of the political left.

and BB's responses reveals that i understand the ideology of the left verily well because they are consistent with this interpretation.

part 3 of this series shows a contrast of hierarchy of governments based upon these interpretations of the founders intent.

Lista said...

In other words, if you believe that "We the People" Represents the States, then you will Believe in the Sovereignty of the States, but if you believe that "We the People" Represents the People, then you will believe in a more Powerful Federal Government. Hmmmm. Interesting.

The Reason for this is because the Federal Government can Protect the People from the Abuses of the States. On the Other Hand, Local Control is Usually Better when it Comes to Domestic Issues, relating to the Local Area.

What it Continues to Come Down to is the Balance of Powers. That is the Balance of the Powers of the Three Branches of Government, the Balance of Powers between the Local, State and Federal Governments and the Balance of Powers of the People and the Governments.

Balance, Balance, Balance; That is what the Constitution is all about and that is what Life is all about. When ever we Try to Make anything about "One or the Other", we mess up the Balance.

As far as the "Founders Intent" goes, I think that One thing that is being Over Looked is that there was a lot of Debate and a lot of Dissent and because of this the "Intent" of the Founding Fathers was not United and therefore, the Dissent that is Present today is Representative of the Same Dissent that was Occurring then and the Debate just goes on and on and on.

In my Opinion the Debate is between those who think that it has to be "One of the Other" and if we could just Find that Balance in the Middle, we might be able to Stop Fighting amongst Each Other.

The Griper said...

lista,
your response only reveals your bias towards the traditional hierarchy of government thus,
one question;
if the federal government can protect us from the abuses of the State then what government will protect us from the abuses of the federal government?

Lista said...

Actually Griper,
BB is the One who First Mentioned the Concept of "Civil Rights" being the Rights of Individuals and the Constitutional Amendments Gave the Federal Government the Power to Protect the Individuals from the Abuses of the States and what he said made sense to me.

The Question that you Asked is not as Difficult to Answer as it Seems. The Federal Government Protects Individuals from the States based on the Authority of the Constitutional Amendments and We are Protected from the Federal Government by the Original Constitution.

Once again the whole Constitution was Designed to Establish a Balance of Powers, starting with the Balance of the Powers of the Three Branches of Government and no Branch is to have more Power than another. Thus, the Individual Powers Protect against the other.

The Griper said...

lista,
now you are being inconsistent in your argument.

"The Federal Government Protects Individuals from the States based on the Authority of the Constitutional Amendments and We are Protected from the Federal Government by the Original Constitution."

1. since the Constitution applies to the States as well as the federal government then why are we not protected from the abuses of State by the Constitution as you say that we are protected from federal abuse.
why do we need federal government protection? stitution instead of the federal government?

2. since the Constitution recognized the right of an individual to own another person and the Supreme Court Justices recognizes that right through out the history up until a certain time then i can only ask this question;
why did the federal government not a war to protect that individual's right?

and if as you say that federal government protects the individual based upon amendments then i ask a further question;
what amendment was in place at the time so as to deny that person the right to own another person so as to justify Lincoln's war to liberate and protect the rights of that slave?

BB-Idaho said...

"and BB's responses reveals that i understand the ideology of the left verily well because they are consistent with this interpretation."
..agreed. Which leads to
"It is this question that is the foundation of debate between the political factions in this nation today." Perhaps..
there are any number of questions up for debate between political factions. IMO, 'getting into the founder's heads'
may fall more into 'historical psychology' than political POV; but at any rate, all we have are their own writings (and the bad things they sometimes said of each other). I suspect that although each founder
had his strength and weakness...they did a tolerable job. :)

The Griper said...

he smiles, that we can agree upon BB. a most admirable job in my opinion.

but it is also fun to debate the motives of those admirable men too, especially, when that discussion reveals mutual respect for the sincerity of belief for the poltical viewpoint of an apponent as i have seen in this discussion with each of us.


its not a tone of discussion that is seen much around the blogs. sems like a lot of them just prefers name-calling when they hear an opposing viewpoint. and i say that in regards to both sides.

i know that discussions like we have had does more to inspire me to dig deeper into my own thoughts and i hope it does for you and lista also.

Lista said...

Since Power Corrupts, Abuse and Mistreatment can come from any Source of Power and that is why we Need Protection. The States can Abuse us and the Federal Government can Abuse us. In my Opinion, the Original Constitution was Written to Protect the States from the Federal Government and Limit its Powers. Later, though, Amendments Needed to be Added to Protect Individuals from the States.

The States, or the State Representatives, are Supposed to Protect their Own Citizens from the Federal Government, by Representing the Best Interests of the States. If none of this Works, then that is the Reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Were in the Constitution is the Right of an Individual to Own Another Stated, Griper? I don't Think it is.

Here's my Take on what Happened. There was Disagreement about how to Interpret the Constitution and it could not be Settled Peacefully, thus the War Occurred.

The Issue of Slavery is Actually not that much Different than the Pro-Life Issue. The Intent of the Constitution is Spelled out in the Declaration of Independence in that it was to Grant to all Persons the Right to "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Conflict, as Crazy as it Sounds, is whether or not the Negroes were Considered Persons, rather then Property.

Right now the same Issue is going on in Relation to the Unborn. Are they Property of the Mother, or are they Persons?

The Griper said...

Were in the Constitution is the Right of an Individual to Own Another Stated, Griper?

its there, lista. in the section about the census for the purpose of determining representatives.

it was an issue debated at the time of the writing of the Constitution on whether or not to deny that individual the right.


there was no argument over interpretation. everyone knew that it was constitutionalty legal. the debate wasn't over the legality of it. the debate was over the morality of it.

the lagality of it was the result of one of your "compromises" that you like everyone to use in order to get enough votes to enact the Constitution.

and the south seceded from the union when they realized that the individual right were being compromised out of existence.

the southern states seceded in order to protect the rights of their citizens from the federal government.

and they seceded because they knew and understood that only the States, either singularly or collectively, had the right to ban slavery as some had already done.

Lista said...

Yeh, well, even so, the Constitution was Written so that Amendments could be Added and if a Group of People Feel so Strongly about a Needed Amendment that they are Willing to Go to War Over it, then it is an Important Issue that Needs to be Resolved.

I never said, Griper, that the Purpose of Compromises was in Order to get enough Votes for Something. Though in some Cases, such might be Necessary, the Real Reason for Compromises is to Keep the Peace.

"the southern states seceded in order to protect the rights of their citizens from the federal government."

I'm not sure what you Mean here.

Anyway, I Really Thought that that Slavery Issue was Solved a Long Time Ago and I'm Quite Surprised to hear it being Debated all Over Again.

The Griper said...

"Anyway, I Really Thought that that Slavery Issue was Solved a Long Time Ago and I'm Quite Surprised to hear it being Debated all Over Again."

the issue of it was resolved. any debate about it is about "how" it was resolved.

when the intent of the founders is being debated it will always end up at the slave issue and how it was resolved.

it was at that point that the founders intent was turned upside down.

BB-Idaho said...

The 3/5 person/property compromise was only the first of many compromises
in the history of the rights of slave states.
I think, Griper, you mentioned somewhere that
the issue may be viewed from either a moral or a constitutional POV. I would agree with you on the constitutional aspects.
Morally, I find either gross stupidity or moral
turpitude in the Jefferson Davis speeches regarding the southern states 'right to be free'. Specifically, the right to be free to enslave. A 'right' which resulted in a war of brothers then...and a world united against the
Nazis later. With the
moral side of the 'peculiar institution'
the Confederacy lost an important constituency they greatly desired..recognition as a nation by the countries of Europe. The northern states
bear guilt in agreeing that
the population voting base
be enhanced by 3/5, both
in that those 3/5 had no vote (the cause of the
American Revolution (no taxation without representation) but in that
the artificialized census
ceded unwarranted benefits
in terms of taxation and representation. So, IMO,
in order to 'form a more perfect union' the fathers
set their priniciples aside
thinking the arrangement
a temporary one, that the
'peculiar instituion' would die out as happened in the north and in Europe.
But it did not. The 'right' became even more embedded and IMO
irrational..one of the
south's finest generals offered a plan which was not only
rejected, but promoted
a different general to command in that theatre
who destroyed his own army.
(a bit of ironic justice in that locale of 'legal'
injustice). So the argument goes on and on.
Meanwhile, when I visit
my parents graves in the
north midwest, I walk through a very old section,
small weathered tombstones
with names and dates and the simple moral statement:
'He fought to free the slaves'. Knew a german born
engineer who had picked up a saying when he was with
Rommel's Afrikacorps...
'the dog barks, and the caravan moves on'.

The Griper said...

BB,
i cannot argue the merits of Jefferson's speeches because I've never read them thus do not know the logic, if any, behind them.

and that is the basis i use to declare the merits of anyone's writings or speeches.

"So, IMO,
in order to 'form a more perfect union' the fathers
set their priniciples aside
thinking the arrangement
a temporary one, that the
'peculiar instituion' would die out as happened in the north and in Europe."

on this we both can agree. but one qu7estion BB. did it just die out in the North or did the States make it an illegal institution within their own borders?

Lista said...

Here's another 2 Parter.

I'm not Following you, Griper. If the Intend to the Founders was Split, then how can it be "Turned Upside Down"? By this, I mean if there was Dissent and Debate, as there was, then the Original Intent was not United and if it was not United, then couldn't it be said that the Side that Won the Debate in Relation to How the Constitution was Originally Written, was not the Side that Won the War. That is, they Won the Initial Battle, but not the War.

Apparently, there was Adequate Disagreement Over the way the Constitution was Originally Written in Order to Cause a War. Whether this was a Disagreement Over Interpretation, or Over What was Actually Written there is actually Irrelevant. Either Way, the Disagreement was Significant Enough that it Resulted in War and a Conflict of this Magnitude did not Arise Over Night. It was Most Certainly there Prior to the Writing and Signing of the Initial Document.

So what this all Means is that the Intent of those Who Wrote Our Constitution was not United, so if Our Opinions about it now are not United, then all it is is a Continuation of the On Going Conflict of State vs. Federal Sovereignty and How much of Each there should be.

Lista said...

Apparently a Compromise was made in the Original Constitution in Order to Prevent War, but the War Ended Up Happening anyway and I guess it could be argued that it was a Compromise that should not have been Made, yet what I'm Wondering is if the Compromise had not been Made, if the War might have Happened anyway. Sometimes when the Conflicts are that Strong, there is just no resolving them.

A Compromise that is too Shallow will not Resolve the Conflict and yet a Compromise that is too Deep will not Resolve the Conflict either. I Personally am Guilty of the Second of these, for I will at Times Compromise too much and then Resent it afterwards. The Fact that this is True, however, does not Prove that No Compromise at all is any better.

Like anything Else in Life, Compromise and the Reluctance to Compromise Needs to be Kept in Balance. Either Extreme, Excessive Compromise or Excessive Lack of Compromise, will be Unfruitful. In Fact, even a little too much, or not Quite Enough is Unbalanced.

I Wonder too if there are not Times in which there is no Way that War can be Prevented because sometimes One of the Two Sides just Refuses to Compromise. In this case, the Side that does Compromise can not be Blamed for the War. No it was the Side that would not Compromise that is to Blame, because to not Compromise is to Force the other Side to Come all the Way Over to the will of the One who will not Compromise and this is Never a Workable Situation and IMO, it was those who Desired to Own Slaves that would not Compromise.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster