Does the Preamble to the Constitution have any level of legal standing?

December 1st, 2024 | jonty30

[Jonty30]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[ifinnegan]

“ At the time, we the people meant “white males””

Leftist talking point.

If it meant that they would have said that.

[Political Junkie Too]

However, I'm being told that the Preamble has no legal authority.

I've been told the same thing from my legal "betters," but I still disagree.

Article VI Clause 2 says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Preamble is certainly a "Thing" in the Constitution, and it was a part of the document that the Framers signed, so they knew it was a "Thing" in the Constitution, too, and not some addendum that was added to it later to explain it.

The fact that We the People are the largest words in the Constitution means that the Framers demanded that it be given the most importance, and yet my "betters" are telling me that it has no importance at all.

-PJ

[Ancesthntr]

It is not anything other than a statement of purpose for all that follows. It contains no rules of any kind - no prohibitions, no directions, etc. It has no legal standing at all, but it has great political value.

The Declaration of Independence is very similar. It is basically a dear John letter to the English, telling them why we are sick and tired of their crap, and that we’re leaving. I do look upon it as the moral basis for the later establishment of the Constitution, as the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent our own government from becoming like the English one that we kicked out.

[fruser1]

Thing

I think the "thing" there refers to any part of a State's Constitution or Laws that attempt to preempt Federal supremacy.

[Jonty30]

That’s my point. It gives the intent as to why the Constitution. Since it is the intent of the Constitution, that should be the guiding force that helps judges interpret the words of the Constitution.

If they wrote in the Preamble for the Constitution and the Amendments that it should be interpreted with kindness, then that’s the way judges should interpret the laws. By that measure, the Preamble says, “We the people and the jurisdiction thereof,” that’s also the guiding principle.

Foreigners have no rights and the Constitution is only for the people who are of the jurisdiction of the United States.

[NorthMountain]

At the time, we the people meant “white males”

And we weren't drowning in wokeism, DEI, CRT, faggotry, and feminism.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Declaration of Independence is very similar. It is basically a dear John letter to the English...

First, this is a bad example to base your argument around.

The American Declaration of Independence had never been done before. That's why we were called "The Great Experiment." Prior to the American independence, countries in Europe and Asia were either conquered, descended through hereditary "divine providence" monarchy, or merged through inter-marriage of royals. The Americans were the first peoples who cast off their allegiances in a written declaration of self-rule.

The Declaration of Independence had the authority of law because our Continental Congress of the people said it did.

It contains no rules of any kind - no prohibitions, no directions, etc.

Second, the Preamble said this:

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

I ask you, what did the Framers mean by this? Who were they referring to as "our Posterity?"

We know that the Framers referred to themselves as "We the People," so who were they speaking about as their "Posterity?

And what was it that the Constitution did to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" to their "Posterity," if you said that the Preamble was a "statement of purpose?"

Is there any "Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (as Article VI Clause 2 cites) that might be informed by the "statement of purpose" in the Preamble such as the phrase that I pointed out?

-PJ

[Flaming Conservative]

Years ago, Hillsdale College sent me a large book which includes the Constitution, all relevant documents, plus the papers written by the founding fathers and other patriots of the era. I am ashamed to say that I have not read it, but I intend to remedy that fault.

[Jonty30]

What would be the name of that book? I’d love to remedy it with you.

[joe fonebone]

The constitution was written to be easy to read, understand and enforce.
It’s been written in clearly understood English.
It’s not supposed to be a “growing” document.
It says what it means and means what it says.
The past 120 years of lawyers and judges opinions do not change the meaning of the words, unless you are a former president who says “ that depends on what the definition of is is”.
Time to turn back the clock, and return to a constitutional Republic.
The only way out is to revert to the constitution, as written.

[Political Junkie Too]

You may be right about that. On another rereading, I did read "thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State" as "(thing in the Constitution) or (Laws of any State)", when it probably was meant to be "thing in the (Constitution or Laws of any State)". I now see that it makes more contextual sense as meaning state Constitutions and state laws notwithstanding. Thanks for making me see that more clearly.

Still, see my comments in post #27 where I ask the question about statement of purpose.

-PJ

[curious7]

That’s very true.

[Political Junkie Too]

The constitution was written to be easy to read, understand and enforce. It’s been written in clearly understood English.

Exactly. This was also mentioned by Thomas Paine in his 1791 work The Rights of Man, Chapter 4: Of Constitutions.

Here we see a regular process — a government issuing out of a constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control to the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.

It wish it were still true today.

-PJ

[curious7]

Your ‘legal betters’ (which is debatable) position was probably the result of the commie law professors that infest the law schools. Which is why as a general rule the 2nd was most always glossed over and not stressed last century. Or briefly covered as a government controlled ‘right’ - if you can believe that intellectual thaumaturgy.

[fastkelly]

General welfare applies to all US citizens in order to apply generally across the people. Social Security and other social programs are targeted and are applied to a specific group and not all citizens, generally speaking. So Article 1, Section 8 would not apply to these programs.

Definition, General = Of or affecting the entire body.

[Flaming Conservative]

It is available at the Hillsdale College online book store. It is titled, “The US Constitution. A Reader”. From the forward :
The U.S. Constitution: A Reader is made up of original source documents that bear upon the founding of the American republic, the making of its Constitution, and the struggle to preserve that document and govern under it to the current day.

[Jonty30]

Ordered.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Its part and parcel of a legal document signed by all parties. Of course its legal.

[Flaming Conservative]

👍

[SSS Two]

The Supreme Court cited The Preamble in Texas v. White to nullify Texas' Ordinance of Secession and determine that Texas remained a state throughout the Civil War.

The Supreme Court sought to invoke the "perpetual union" language from the Articles of Confederation to show that secession was unlawful. But how could the Supreme Court use the Articles of Confederation when they had been replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1789? That's where the Preamble comes in. The Preamble states that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was explicitly to "form a more perfect union". The Supreme Court reasoned that the Constitution sought to form a more perfect union than the union created in the Articles of Confederation. Since the union created in the Articles of Confederation was a "perpetual union", and the U.S. Constitution set out to create a more perfect union, then the union created by the Constitution must also be a "perpetual union" or else it would be a less perfect union.

Texas v. White