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