ABOUT SECURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY

 Posting 7

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Most rational people would agree that liberty is a good thing. Dictators, despots, and tyrants may routinely work against liberty, but in their own perverse way, they actually reserve to themselves what they deny to others, sort of a self-centered liberty which frees them to do what they want (such as restricting the liberty of others).

But in the preamble of the United States Constitution, one of the purposes of the document is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Let us lay aside any nefarious ideas of liberty—such as those propagated through social media—and agree that, at the very least, liberty might very well be found in those rights and freedoms found in our laws (particularly the Bill of Rights).

It must also be made clear that liberties, freedoms, and rights are only as good as their source. A tyrannical dictatorship will not secure many, if any, blessings of liberty, let alone those that would extend freedom in time. “Self” as the basis of liberty has its own weakness, in that it fosters personal ideas which may or may not work for the benefit of our Union, and fails to reflect anyone’s preferences but its own.

This writer humbly believes that the source of our rights and liberties is stated in the Declaration of Independence, in which we read that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (emphasis added). While our government may work on the application of these blessings of liberty, their Source is transcendent to humanity.

As “we the people” acknowledge this Source,  we are far better equipped to secure these blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.
 

by Aplo

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GENERAL WELFARE

Posting 6 

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

One of the purposes for the Constitution of the United States is to “promote the General Welfare.” Alas, some interpret this as meaning that the United States is to “provide general welfare” to all its people. This writer is justifiably uneasy about such a reading.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to collect taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare.  At the time of its drafting, “welfare” was another word for “well-being.” And, of course, the government had a desire to promote the “well-being” of the nation by various means. The concern was for the health and safety of the citizens of this country.  In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, “general welfare” was defined as “exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.”

As is inevitable, there are disagreements as to what exactly constitutes “general welfare” today. And while the experts would certainly quibble over the scope of general well-being, there is no question (as this writer as argued many times) that the federal government has some obligation—by virtue of the fact that we are one nation—to promote the “well-being” of its citizens.

But are we then to suppose that Congress can spend unlimited money on anything it deems necessary for the “general welfare?” Inasmuch as the Constitution empowers Congress to enact taxes for such, and inasmuch as such taxes are incurred by “we the people,” it would seem prudent that caution and restraint are in order, lest the Congress cast off all restraint and fund grand programs that some of its citizenry neither wants nor needs.

Indeed, given that certain powers are reserved to the states, many state constitutions have their own, more specific, definitions of what it means to promote the well-being of its citizens. By remembering this, we allow the individual states to tend to their unique needs and leave the federal government responsible for promoting the general welfare of the country.

by Aplo

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