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.