Comments on: Misunderstanding the Preamble

By: ken

ken — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:23:43 +0000

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.

By: perlcat

perlcat — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:27:29 +0000

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.

By: JoeSwiss

JoeSwiss — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:21:19 +0000

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).