Navigation

Misunderstanding the Preamble

By on September 5, 2009 in Constitution
  • Share on Tumblr

It seems to me that after years and years of government-run education, people in this country just can’t understand that everything – in some way – in the Constitution, was meant as a way to limit government power.   Not the other way around.

Take this common view of the preamble:

The entire history of the legal system supports the notion that the material in the preamble to the constitution lays out what the legitimate functions of the Federal government are.

I’d be interested in knowing what court rulings this blogger was referring to, because Constitutionally, that statement couldn’t be more wrong.

The preamble lays out the intentions or the reasons for the Constitution.  It does not grant one ounce of power to the federal government.

All the “legitimate functions” of the federal government – which, according to the Founders would fulfill the intentions of the preamble – are in the Constitution itself.

The short of it? While the Preamble does refer to the “general Welfare,” promoting it is limited to those powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, ,

3 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
ken
ken

I am not suprised at their lack of understanding. But they almost mindlessly follow their king and queen bees, like mindless worker bees.These people are ripe to try and turn U.S. into Haiti, with clubs and guns at the polls, constant voter fraud,etc... We need to watch carefully for clues of reprisal for every loss they suffer. They dont use their brain as much as muscle.

perlcat
perlcat

For more fun, read the rebuttal to the tenthers.html posting -- someone differs from them on the 'points' they were trying to make, and it immediately descends into name calling and banning discussion from anyone who would dare to differ.

Why am I not surprised?

If arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny, they cannot stand. Silencing opposition does not mean that it goes away. Underhanded tactics and diversions just generate resentment.

JoeSwiss
JoeSwiss

This reminded me of something I read from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 2005, regarding the Preamble, p. 43

The Preamble was placed in the Constitution more or less as an afterthought ... Gouverneur Morris ... composed it at the last moment. It was Morris who gave the considered purposes of the Constitution coherent shape, and the Preamble was the capstone of his expository gift. The Preamble did not, in itself, have any substantive legal meaning. The understanding at the time was that preambles are merely declaratory and are not to be read as granting or limiting power -- a view sustained by the Supreme Court in Jabobsen v. Massachussetts (1905).