jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (21 posts)

Preamble to the Constitution

  1. peoplepower73 profile image94
    peoplepower73posted 5 years ago

    The following is the Preamble to the Constitution.  What do you think the framers had in mind when they wrote: In order to form a more perfect unioun, promote the general welfare?

    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, 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."

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Wonderful, poetic words.  As to their actual meaning, I think it just means keeping the overall society functioning in a fair and efficient way.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Not what we have now.

  3. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    The original writing as you have stated was definitely not written with the intent of America, as it stands presently.

    There have been too many rights violations in the past years. There has been too much corruption within government. There has been too many ineffective government agencies which most likely shouldn't even exist. There are too many inefficient people operating government agencies. Meaning, these people don't give a damn whether or not, they do their job properly and don't give a damn about the people who are hurt because of their foolish actions.

    There's NO equality in America because the Economic landscape isn't a level playing field.

    There's NO equal rights because there are too many arrogant a$$hole males who still want women to be subjected to their egotistical whims.

    A more PERFECT union between citizens and government? Sure, as long as there's a buffer between Government and Citizens, so as to ensure that Citizens' power remains intact and government official(morons/idiots) know their place.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image94
      peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think the perfect union that the framers were referring to was between government and  citizens.  Remember this was during colonial times.  I think the union was among the 13 colonies. Hence, the United States of America..Just my humble opinion.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, the Union was about 13 colonies at the time. That's a no brainer.

        The framers had in mind was a government which would be completely controlled by citizens and those citizens would be elected to said positions. This system of election was supposed to be to enhance the quality of life of all those who lived in America and live in the pursuit of Happiness.

        A person's individual human rights circumvent any rights any country would deem as a right. This is why the system is breaking down presently and more and more people are looking to be considered truly equal.

        As I said, Equality is non-existent in America. It doesn't exist in any capacity and neither does Equal Rights.

        The best UNION would be one owned and operated by the citizens. If it was truly operated by the citizens in the interests of making society a better place for everyone, then people might actually take a vested interest in doing more in their community or for the country itself.

        The problem in America is that government and business are in bed with one another and the many politicians in office presently are not honest enough to do anything about it. The "status quo" is the biggest problem and it has been compounded by more laws aiding business and allowing them to do "dirty" business within the Economy of America, while crushing any and all competition.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          +1. Do you think that is only a problem in America?

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No Hollie, it's not a problem that is solely limited to America. I guarantee it is happening all over the world.

            It has to do with the foolish "survival of the fittest" mentality crippling the world today.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, I agree. And it's frightening. My dad was a Labour party activist, the labour party in the UK came into being because of the trade unions. However, the Labour party my dad ascribed to, and trod the leather for, is nothing like the Labour party of today, nor the trade unions. They are worlds apart.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image94
          peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with your last paragraph, except  it was not more laws that caused the greed and corruption.  The laws were in place to stop that.  It was deregulation of the financial markets that caused the meltdown and deregulation of  corporations that is causing the greed and corruption to thrive and creating the inequality.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I said laws "aiding" business. Or did you miss that?

            Cutting up or deregulating corporations isn't a bad thing if you have honest businesses doing business. But, as we all know, the corporations will do whatever it is necessary to protect their profits. So, they do need some regulation or laws to govern them.

            The best way to protect their profits is to purchase a U.S. Congressman/woman/person. And, ensure that their politician has enough political juice to assist in their lobbyists being successful.

            Not to mention, a business is consider an individual. When this particular law was approved and passed, it opens up Pandora's box.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image94
              peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I understand what you mean now.  When a law is deregulated, another law has to replace it to enforce the deregulation.  I agree with everything you said in this last reply.

  4. Greekgeek profile image95
    Greekgeekposted 5 years ago

    peoplepower, the Constitution was not written during colonial times-- the Declaration of Independence was! The Constitution was NOT written for the thirteen colonies as soon as they broke away from England.

    By the time the Constitutional Convention assembled, the U.S. had been its own nation for over a decade, governed under the Articles of Confederation. That was a much looser alliance of states in which each state had a lot of autonomy, modeled on and very similar to the Delian League (ancient Greek history, which the founders of the U.S. tried first), or, for a more modern analogy, the European Union. It didn't work very well.

    After a decade of bumbling along under that system, the early leaders of post-colonial America realized that they needed a more central, standardized, and organized system of laws and a central governing body modeled more on the Roman Republic than an alliance of states, for precisely the purposes set forward in the Preamble.

    So the Constitution was the draft for the U.S. government mark ii, after the first one didn't work. A lot of people don't  realize that the Preamble is basically outlining what the Articles of Confederation did NOT do very well, and which the framers of the Constitution hoped to achieve.

    Context is so important.

    It's also important to remember that just because they hoped to accomplish the things put foreward in the Preamble, no government had ever accomplished them before... snapping one's fingers and saying "let's make it so" doesn't necessarily get the job done. Really, it's a miracle it worked as well as it did. And yes, the Preamble is extremely important, because it shows what the Constitution is trying to accomplish; the laws and articles are simply a framework which they hoped would bring it about.

    "More perfect Union" -- as opposed to the Articles of Confederation, which were a sloppy mess
    "establish Justice" -- right now, somebody can just run to a different state to escape justice, and lawlessness like that is disrupting our society
    "insure domestic Tranquility" -- peace and quiet so we can all get along and have economic prosperity
    "provide for the common defense" --so England doesn't try to conquer us again (as it actually tried to do in 1812)
    "secure the blessings of Liberty" --we're still smarting from being ruled overseas (having been born in this country), and we want to make it crystal-clear that we're ruling ourselves now. As for Liberty, we are all overeducated philosophers who believe in Plato's Republic and high-minded ideals, so we're going to aspire to Liberty and Justice and all that good stuff, but when you strip away the lofty rhetoric we're just rich landowners who want slaves and wealth and to do very well for ourselves and our families.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image94
      peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you so much for the history lesson. I really appreciate it.  However, in your defintions, I think you left out the key question, which is: What did promote the general welfare mean to them? How did they use that to run thier lives as a union?

  5. Greekgeek profile image95
    Greekgeekposted 5 years ago

    General welfare = well-being of the most people possible. The Common Good. This goes back to Socrates, Plato, Cicero, etc, who talk about promoting the Common Good and the Good a great deal. The early founders of the U.S. had studied  and were extremely keen on classical ideals, hoping to put some of them into practice.

    General welfare is the bone of contention we all argue over now.

    It has long been taken in a more or less proactive way. For example, copyright laws were established under this clause so as to promote science and the arts, giving people a way to secure income from their creations and inventions before they were copied by others. Copyright law is specifically derived from the General Welfare clause.

    Other laws have also been enacted to help society work in various ways. Infrastructure (roads, schools, banks) are also an outgrowth of the General Welfare clause. The requirement that drivers maintain auto insurance is also an outgrowth of this: without it, if you had an auto accident, chances were you couldn't afford to fix your car, even if the accident wasn't your fault. The pool of auto insurance money created a mechanism to pay for car damage, which is such a widespread problem that it was necessary for the government to play a role.

    The hard part of the "promote the general Welfare" clause is in deciding what is necessary to the welfare of most people in the U.S., which it would be nearly impossible for most individuals to secure on their own without the U.S. government to promote and support it.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image94
      peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Your last paragraph describes the essence of what divides this country today. How much government is required to promote the general welfare of the people?  It is a constant struggle between socialism and capitalism and states rights and federal rights.  I believe we need both.  We need some form of socialism to provide those services that are too difficult fot the individual to provide and a form of captialism with rules and regulations to prevent greed and corruption. I can't image what the country would be like if there were no standards and laws provided by a central government or interstate highways.  Thanks for your insight.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        There's a point where too much is a detriment to growth of America.
        I will agree that there's a struggle in America, but it's not over whether or not, socialism or capitalism is a workable method. Capitalism can work without any issues providing there's a level playing field for all business. As for the problem with States rights and Federal authority rights. It's understood that State rights are to supercede Federal authority rights. The most important thing is that the Federal Government and it's rights are limited, and should adjust according to the 50 States in the Union.
        I will agree that for the time being, some sort of social programs are still required, however, there should be a system in place which creates growth out of those people who participate in the programs. Just giving money to people isn't a plan. It violates the oldest of knowledge- "Save anyone for a day by giving them a fish, but teach them how to get the fish and you feed them for a lifetime".

        The problem is education. The problem is funding for solid educational system which has faltered in the last decade or so because of BS politics and social issues invading the walls of schools. Every State should have adequate funding for schools, either through taxation or business contributions. The fact that there's not enough money for education just reinforces what I have been saying for many years now- America's society is being dumbed down. The only reason is for control. This coincides with many of the new laws put into place which are stripping individual rights. And, people are not even noticing.

        American politicians are presently buying time for their next move, which is most likely to dominate the Economy with citizens paying for the burden. The government will continue to keep people divided on social issues, so they stay distracted away from the truth of corruption in government.
        I'm not too keen with your usage of the word "standards", but there's multiple meanings for it. So, do explain?

        There will never be a central government with one set of laws to govern everyone. This would mean that States' laws would no longer exist. The laws themselves would be incorporated into the Federal government and become Federal laws, which might carry a higher consequences(longer sentences) and something that cannot be allowed by citizens.

        1. profile image64
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Cags, if they actually taught the kids something useful instead of all the politcally correctness crap, I'd agree.
          I have a friend that teaches high school students and she is so frustrated that she cannot teach the kids things they need to know to survive in the world.  Instead she has to spend a great deal of time on how not to offend anyone, how not to say or think the 'wrong' thing, so on and so on.  We spend more on education every year and the results just keep getting worse.  I believe someone one said, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.
          Need to return all power, all decisions back to the local school district and let them do what is best for their situation.  Can't be any worse than what we have now.

  6. profile image0
    Deb Welchposted 5 years ago

    The Peamble was written approximately 221 years ago - if that is any indication of how much our government and values have changed with the wording alone in the content.  We can only hope to follow such high standards of that many years ago when people and world was nowhere near 2012.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this


  7. lovemychris profile image58
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Where do your kids go to school?  My daughter AND grandson are getting excellent education: college prep.

    One in high school, the other in 7th grade.
    I think being polite and not insulting people for things they have no control over is fine.---my kindygarden kid learns that!

    Where but school do kids come in contact with all sorts of different people?

    We adults apparently need to learn it too. Fish rots from the head.