ABOUT DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY AND COMMON DEFENSE

Posting 5

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

The next two purposes of the United States Constitution given to us in its Preamble are: “ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.” While many an essay links the latter with the next item—“promote the general welfare” (because of their connection in Article 1, Section 8)—for our purposes, we will consider domestic tranquility and common defense together.

“Domestic tranquility” literally means “peace at home,” which adequately describes what it is. The Constitution sets for the ability of the government to handle disputes that may arise between states. Since the old Articles of Confederation did not have a strong federal government structure, a scenario of a state government to rise up against another state was a real possibility. It did not even have to involve warfare—it could be disputes between states. These inter-state squabbles can be resolved by the intervention of the federal government.

Providing for the “common defense” has been understood as the ability of the government to engage in war or to resolve conflict with other countries through diplomacy. The principle of this is clear, with ongoing discussions as to how it is applied (as is true with many parts of the Constitution).

In short, ensuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense seem to embody the fact that, at times, we can and should act as one nation, seeking to solve problems internally and defend our nation from threats externally.

For those who would question this, it should be apparent that, as it has been stated elsewhere, that sometimes we are fifty states and sometimes we are one nation. There are a great many matters in which it is important for individual states to maintain their identity and government. But there are also areas in which it is important to act as the whole. In World War II, Germany did not go to war against Arizona. Rhode Island did not declare war on Japan. The armed forces of our country defend the whole country, not just parts of it.

And it must be realized and admitted that it is in our best interests as a nation to deal with internal rebellion. Fracturing the unity of the states (see Civil War) only weakens us as a country, breaking down our very systems and infrastructure and leaving us vulnerable to those external forces that would take advantage of our weaknesses.

Therefore, two of the stated purposes of the Constitution are to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, for the good of our states and for the good of our nation.

by Aplo

AND TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE

 Posting 4

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

The next great purpose of the United States Constitution is to “establish justice.” Like the other elements of the Preamble, this short statement implies that what we will read in the succeeding sections will show the mechanism by which justice will be done. The Constitution sets up a system of laws which apply across race, religion, gender, with no distinction between wealth or status. In short, all are equal before the law and all are equally subject to judgement or punishment when they violate the law. It was James Madison who remarked that justice is “the end (the ultimate goal) of government” and that it “has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” Establishing justice affirms rights and administrates laws that are fit and applicable to all citizens.

 However. . .

If we are absolutely honest, there are times in our country’s great history in which we have failed in this lofty purpose. There are people, grand and common, who have failed in this lofty purpose. There are locations that have failed in this lofty purpose. And critics of our Constitution are delighted to show how even the Constitution fails (in parts) in this lofty purpose. There are those, even in our modern age, who do not feel that the lofty purpose of justice has been established for them.

When considering the very real question of whether justice has been established, we must ask the all-important question of whether we should add the proverbial gasoline to the fire of the debate. It is unfortunate that there are examples of failed justice. Without a doubt, there needs to be a hard conversation regarding each of these situations and with each individual who feels justice has passed them by. But the solutions to these problems will not come—will not ever come—from violent demonstrations against the society’s authorities. Nor will the answers to these issues be found—will not ever be found--by ripping apart and reassembling the Constitution that was formulated to establish justice.

 Justice is not a political push to set one’s opinion as the radical solution to the problems of this Union.

Justice is not a call for punishment, retribution, or revenge.

Justice is not demanding a predetermined conclusion before all the facts are known.

Justice is not automatically assigning the worst possible motives to those we have pre-judged to be “bad people” based on their agreement or disagreement with our position.

Justice is far bigger, far loftier, than all that.

By all means, the work for justice will, should, must continue. This Constitution was structured to fulfill the goal of establishing justice. Where we have failed to live up to this, we need to be honest and work together to address the inequities, until no person is denied justice on the basis of race, politics, wealth, or position.  But this will not come by dismantling the document, but by correcting the deficiencies.

It has been said that “justice is blind.” May it continue to be so in our great land.

by Aplo

ON FORMING A MORE PERFECT UNION

 Posting 3

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

It has been said that the Preamble of the United States Constitution contains six purposes or reasons for its existence (notwithstanding those who re-define or re-number these items). The first of these grand rationales is “to form a more perfect union.”

The original meaning of the word “perfect” was “complete” or “fully finished.” And in the historical context of the Constitution, this made sense. In the original Articles of Confederation, the power of the country resided at the state level, with a relatively weak central government. Indeed, it was likened to having 13 independent countries agreeing to work together. But skirmishes, such as the Shay’s Rebellion of 1786, quickly demonstrated that, without a strong central government to deal with internal conflicts, the very security of the nation could be in jeopardy. Thus came the drafting of the new United States Constitution, with its purpose of forming a more perfect, complete, fully finished union.

A fictional television president once said “sometimes we’re fifty states and sometimes we’re one country.” It is a grand thing for there to be such individuality. The ability of a state to govern its own affairs is important. One of our strengths in this nation lies in the individual character, culture, and complexion of each individual state. This writer does not pretend to know what the people of New York need or want, nor does the state of Texas reflect the aspirations of the people of Ohio. There is a degree of sovereignty in the states, a fact suggested in the tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But as our new country was taking its first baby steps, it became important to be able to speak as one unified body. The Constitution lays this out.

There are inherent problems in the often-heard calls from states or parts of states to leave the Union or link up with another state to form a new state. This writer sympathizes with the cause, There is frequently a disparity, for example, between a liberal, metropolitan sector of the state (particularly where the state capital is located) and the largely rural, conservative areas composing the largest part of the geography, but the smaller share of the population. Measures and policies from centralized pockets of power often leave portions of a state feeling disenfranchised. And thus the yearning to break away.

But any move to disrupt these “united” States, no matter how noble it seems, would only work against the heart of a “more perfect union.” There was once, in our history, a sad, tragic war over this issue, so we would be wise to find other solutions. The founding fathers sought to establish a strong union, a more complete, a more perfect union than had existed before.

More modern interpreters of the Constitution take another view of this “more perfect union. They see it more as the application of continued activity toward being “more perfect”—in values, in ideas, in dreams, and in action. I believe there is a certain merit to this approach. Indeed, the history of our country shows that we have made changes over the years to write wrongs and better embody the ideas that we believe, toward the betterment of this nation.

Alas, most the writers espousing the moral application of “more perfect union” tend to view our country as a historically horrible wreck, a mess that requires the failures of the past to be avenged, the sins of the present to be subdued, and the potential misdeeds of the future pre-empted. Then, and only then, can one even begin to profess fidelity to this country. “Redemption” is frequently pushed aside by “revenge.”

The flaw in this movement is that it requires a “power-group” to determine which potential opinions are to be the plumbline with which to measure when our union is “more perfect.” There are many of these groups, some on one side of our current political divide and many more on the other side, who routinely protest and argue and suggest that anyone who actually disagrees with their viewpoint is the worst form of Precambrian protozoa. Such arguments do not affect our “more perfect union,” but they do create the impression that “we the people” are more divided than we are.

“In order to form a more perfect union” is one of the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States. We see that in the fact that we are, in fact, United States, and not merely a loose collection of independent mini-sovereignties. Wyoming has a different identity than New Hampshire, and Florida is far apart from Alaska, but in the end, their citizens are citizens of one country—our country. And if there is improvement to be made, let it be made in improving what we already are: “a more perfect union.”

by Aplo

SO AS TO INTRODUCE THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION

 Posting 2

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, while carrying no force of law itself, sums up the intent of the framework that follows. I do not know if its words are still being memorized by school children, but I know of at least one children’s educational program that set the Preamble to a pretty catchy tune. And this writer, when reciting the section, will often find himself silently singing the song (much to the relief of those around him).

 The Preamble is one long sentence that lists the who, the what, and the whys. The “who” is “we the people of the United States.” The “what” is to "ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.” In between are the “whys:” seven purposes on the minds of the people for which they ordained and established this document.

“We the people of the United States.” This is extraordinary, for it is essentially saying that the Constitution is actually not owned by the government, but by the people. It was not a king, president, senator, or political operative who is responsible for this document, it is “we:” the collective whole. As such, it would seem that the government serves the people.

A story is told to the effect that, because of the writers did not know which states would ratify this new document, they deliberately left it open by referring to the “people of the United States.” It was ratified by 9 states on June 21, 1788, then by two more a little more than a month later. The final two states ratified the Constitution in 1789 and 1790 respectively. There was much debate and contention, which only demonstrates that honest human beings can disagree, yet still come to produce one of the most amazing documents in the history of the world. They “ordained and established this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Should you the reader interpret the previous statement as hyperbole and so be put off by it, consider that the Constitution of the United States has been used as a model in other countries, such as Australia. It has been in continuous use in this country since its ratification, laying out for us a frame of government that has endured over 230 years. As the oldest signer of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, said, “I consent Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”

Critics of the Constitution would do well to give Franklin’s words some thought. It is not a perfect document and, at times in our history, it has not always lived up to its purpose. But it may be the best we have. The Constitution, ordained and established by "we the people," deserves all due respect and consideration. And should you disagree; well, it is what we have.

 by Aplo

SO TO ESTABLISH A BRIEF WORD AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE

Posting 1

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

If we met on the street one day and I said, “Let’s talk about the United States Constitution,” you likely would have thought me to be a fool, a madman, or a fringe member of a political party.  That reaction would be unfortunate in one sense and understandable in another. “Unfortunate” in that, indeed, extreme movements have interpreted this document in such a way as to gut it of its promise to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Thus, sidestepping the topic may serve to avoid a prolonged battle with a perfect stranger, it would be wise to sidestep the topic. And the reaction is “understandable” in that it seems as through there is a plethora of uninformed thought and debate within society, so why add to the mess by exchanging mere opinions with someone who may not and certainly does not know what they are talking about? And besides, nobody just spontaneously wants to talk about the Constitution.

 But the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, deserves more than a cursory glance or a cursed-upon diatribe. It lays out the very frame of our government and is the oldest written and codified national constitution still in effect. Those credentials alone should at least earn the U.S. Constitution a look or two.

 The history of the passage of the United States Constitution has filled many a history book, documentary film, and lecture hall presentations. It is a tale of drama, debate, and decisive deliberations. An internet search for “History of the Constitution” will yield many fruitful articles about this time. I will only mention two elements: the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers.

 The Articles of Confederation was the first written constitutional document of the new-born nation. Ratified in 1781, the Articles of Confederation were the first to name this new country the “United States of America.” However, the Articles had some severe weaknesses and eventually a Convention was called to amend it. But in the process, a new, stronger Constitution was formulated and debated.

The other element during this time was the publication of the Federalist in 1787 (or 88.) The Federalist or the Federalist Papers was a series of 85 essays written anonymously by one “Publius” (in reality, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton) in order to promote the ratification of the Constitution. They have been widely regarded as an authoritative commentary on the Constitution and its meaning.

What is significant about these documents--apart from the diamond mine of historical revelations as to what our founding documents are all about? For one thing, they show that the founding of this country was not only incredible and world-changing, but complicated as well. For another, it reminds us that the founding fathers were not mindless automatons marching in lock-step with each other to form a new nation. They argued and reasoned and fought and sparred among themselves to formulate this “more perfect union.” Thus, the Constitution and its history are deeply fascinating.

However, this writer’s purpose is not so grand. I do not have the desire or drive to write an actual commentary on the Constitution. Smarter historians and the founders themselves have written volumes of explanations and expositions and theories on this document. I am not a lawyer and, while I enjoy history, I am not a historian. I assure you that I am (humbly speaking) quite intelligent and capable of reading the writings of the giants of history who have gone before, but I am not here to craft an authoritative treatise of my own. I am not a constitutional scholar.

Instead, I am a citizen who loves his country. So instead of leaving you with a commentary, I will simply comment. I will not share in-depth analysis, just sincere observations. 

In short, this is an ordinary man on the proverbial street, walking up to you and asking if you’d like to talk about the U.S. Constitution.

 by Aplo