|
|
Insist It Means What It Says It Means
Historical Support - Insist It “Means..What It Says It Means”
"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The exact problem We the People have allowed to occur through modernization AND ‘new word meanings’ has altered the Constitution without using Amendments. "
What a perfect lead to the discussion topic to offer, as well as the historical information we have prepared. We cannot continue with our discussion and examination of the Constitution without beginning from a common psychology. LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
When you examine any topic you need to understand and take into consideration all the criteria that lend influence to the outcome of the entire concept. I would like to suggest, for the sake of group approach 3 basic principles that we think should be applied
1- The Historical Context
2-The Language
3-The Original Intent
(you need to keep in mind, much great debate evolves from the idea that we are examining what persons - long dead - were thinking or believing at the time they penned the words...many get lost in that examination...it alone could stop us in our tracks and prevent us from evolving this project...we must agree that the most we can do is to try our best to decipher the intent and the meaning - we are not going to gain absolute answers that satisfy everyone. It is like faith..you begin from the fact that you DO BELIEVE - not from the proof/no proof of IF YOU BELIEVE."
"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and that it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."
It is in the INTENT concept that all legislation is allowed or rejected - after all original specific text. It is because of the ASSUMED OR IMPLIED INTENT that amendments to the Constitution (after the 10th - all language before that date is original to the Framers) have been allowed and accepted. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER - ONCE AN AMENDMENT OR LAW IS ADOPTED IT BECOMES "PRECEDENT" IN ITSELF.
When the historical information you will study states the premise that *the 14th Amendment - makes the 14th Amendment Constitutional * the premises establishes the premise - just as the 14th establishes the 14th.
IT IS FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT FORWARD THAT THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CHANGES FROM ITS ORIGINAL FOCUS.
THE FRAMERS ORIGINAL APPROACH AND LANGUAGE IS THIS: THE PEOPLE - THE STATE - THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
AFTER THE 14 THE SHIFT BECOMES: THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - THE STATE - THE PEOPLE.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is the entire basis of our argument. Without the 14th - allowing itself, we COULD NOT have had the 16th and then the 17th. The 14th has taken away the power of the states to be THE PRINCIPAL tax purveyor (the 16th) and the legislative originator (the 10th). The 14th has gained its sustenance from the (16th - the money) and the power to levy it: as well as the restaurant to dine in (the U.S. Senate - the 17th). If our State senators were working and housed in their residences in "the homeland"...do you honestly think they would support laws that oppress the People and the States? It is a fact that many Senators live permanently in Washington D.C., they maintain "token" properties in their respective states, and "visit" from time to time - but many are a "beltway animal".
*It is important to note that we establish no personal argument against any specific person serving as a representative of any state...there are many who serve well and honorably..it is the 'institutional politician’ and the central dynamic of the body of the senate that we study and find in error. Each state requires and has a right to the equal representation of two senators.
For the sake of this introduction, let us define each criterion:
THE LANGUAGE' of any document is the story and the meaning - applied in the context of the current events of the time. Sentence structure is critical in the 'art of language'. Simply speaking, the noun – verb - noun sentence order establishes the intent through the placement of the order. In the original language of the Constitution (the Preamble and the first 10 Amendments - 'The Bill of Rights’) also the Declaration of Independence...the language statement - as well as the noun-over-noun, is always The People - the State - The central government. Bottom up governmental power and direction Amendments after the 14th, because of the 14th, shifts the language sequence and the meaning - from the Central government - back to the States - and then dictates down to the People, shifts the intention of governing and newly establishes the power of who will govern over who will be governed. While the language may sound desirous to the casual examination - the intended consequence and future consequence, it is where we establish our argument.
*It is also important to note that we focus our argument solely toward the Amendments that have fundamentally shifted the focus of government. We argue only those. There is much objectionable legislation that many do not support. To go after those in piecemeal, while each may be worthwhile, is a selfish expenditure of energy – effort - and precious time. Let us concentrate our best efforts in "1 fatal shot" and go after whatever offenses remain - in the subsequent period after ratification of the 28 Amendment.
'The Historical Context' is paramount to our discussion. 'HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE'. The events and the attitudes and circumstances that were happening at the time of introduction and ratification of the 14th-16th-17th Amendments.
The original language came from men who had fought for and won their freedom from an oppressive government; and who sought to draft a contract that would live forever beyond them - that would serve and maintain the freedom and the liberties for all the people of this Nation - that they had dearly paid for and won.
The historical context of the birth of the 14th is critically very different. The drafters and the sponsors of that language and legislation were men of a very different period and perspective. The Civil War has just ended. We have been a Nation of one citizen warring against another - a "house divided". We had been a society that accepted servitude and enslavement of another human being - who had yet to know or define a 'new citizen'. There were many persons who had earned their freedom through servitude in payment for passage to this new country, a society of new "freeman" established by the 13th Amendment and then compliance won by the Civil War, and a newly arrived and poorly provisioned and uneducated immigrant society, having newly arrived here from another country to seek a better life. "CITIZENSHIP" WAS NOT DEFINED AND COMPLIANCE RECOGNIZED ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, following the Civil War - and at this time of tremendous population expansion. IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE/OR EXCUSE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE DAY AND FAILURE TO HAVE DONE SO - DESIGNS THE POWER GRAB OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
These leaders sought many things. They included good things (uniting things - functioning laws and policies - judgements that will restore the 'union' and prevent further division), as well as concepts that may not be considered so noble (punishment - the 14th was passed when the Northern States wanted to PUNISH the South and they kicked out all Southern Politicians and replaced them with ones that agreed with the North and would agree to the items required to be returned to the Compact. Ratification of the 14th was a "compelled action" placed upon the Southern States and their citizens before re-admittance would be allowed. All ex-confederates were prohibited from participation in the process - (power for party and personal political gain), (governmental superiority over the common man who has not the education, the intelligence, the cooperation of one another-let alone a 'united states' psychology. They also assumed a large arrogance as part of the educated - elected and powerful - the champions over the defeated class of the society of the day). You need to understand it and see the “parts”, in order to judge the whole.
In group development for this Article V project, we quickly understood that historical context is vital to understanding the amendments themselves and to accepting and believing in the argument for our proposal for the 28th Amendment. None of us can be effective advocates for this project if we do not fully embrace "the whole picture". There are many others out there that seek an Article V solution for other solutions or agendas...they are not us, nor are their reasons our reasons. Please study all we are offering - gain the wisdom and the understanding of this project - it is in the entirety that you will find the worthiness.
Read the history. Study in the library . Join the discussions and offer your thoughts and ask your questions. We are all studying and learning together. Thank you for reading.
"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and that it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."
Many will try to define the Constitution in the terms of a 120 year long Revisionist History word and modernization program of a LIVING CONSTITUTION. Of course they can provide zero language in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION that authorizes the drifting changes of time and place. As Jefferson said – “Bind them down with the heavy chains of the CONSTITUTION”. - L.Y.
"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The exact problem We the People have allowed to occur through modernization AND ‘new word meanings’ has altered the Constitution without using Amendments. "
What a perfect lead to the discussion topic to offer, as well as the historical information we have prepared. We cannot continue with our discussion and examination of the Constitution without beginning from a common psychology. LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
When you examine any topic you need to understand and take into consideration all the criteria that lend influence to the outcome of the entire concept. I would like to suggest, for the sake of group approach 3 basic principles that we think should be applied
1- The Historical Context
2-The Language
3-The Original Intent
(you need to keep in mind, much great debate evolves from the idea that we are examining what persons - long dead - were thinking or believing at the time they penned the words...many get lost in that examination...it alone could stop us in our tracks and prevent us from evolving this project...we must agree that the most we can do is to try our best to decipher the intent and the meaning - we are not going to gain absolute answers that satisfy everyone. It is like faith..you begin from the fact that you DO BELIEVE - not from the proof/no proof of IF YOU BELIEVE."
"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and that it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."
It is in the INTENT concept that all legislation is allowed or rejected - after all original specific text. It is because of the ASSUMED OR IMPLIED INTENT that amendments to the Constitution (after the 10th - all language before that date is original to the Framers) have been allowed and accepted. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER - ONCE AN AMENDMENT OR LAW IS ADOPTED IT BECOMES "PRECEDENT" IN ITSELF.
When the historical information you will study states the premise that *the 14th Amendment - makes the 14th Amendment Constitutional * the premises establishes the premise - just as the 14th establishes the 14th.
IT IS FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT FORWARD THAT THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CHANGES FROM ITS ORIGINAL FOCUS.
THE FRAMERS ORIGINAL APPROACH AND LANGUAGE IS THIS: THE PEOPLE - THE STATE - THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
AFTER THE 14 THE SHIFT BECOMES: THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - THE STATE - THE PEOPLE.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is the entire basis of our argument. Without the 14th - allowing itself, we COULD NOT have had the 16th and then the 17th. The 14th has taken away the power of the states to be THE PRINCIPAL tax purveyor (the 16th) and the legislative originator (the 10th). The 14th has gained its sustenance from the (16th - the money) and the power to levy it: as well as the restaurant to dine in (the U.S. Senate - the 17th). If our State senators were working and housed in their residences in "the homeland"...do you honestly think they would support laws that oppress the People and the States? It is a fact that many Senators live permanently in Washington D.C., they maintain "token" properties in their respective states, and "visit" from time to time - but many are a "beltway animal".
*It is important to note that we establish no personal argument against any specific person serving as a representative of any state...there are many who serve well and honorably..it is the 'institutional politician’ and the central dynamic of the body of the senate that we study and find in error. Each state requires and has a right to the equal representation of two senators.
For the sake of this introduction, let us define each criterion:
THE LANGUAGE' of any document is the story and the meaning - applied in the context of the current events of the time. Sentence structure is critical in the 'art of language'. Simply speaking, the noun – verb - noun sentence order establishes the intent through the placement of the order. In the original language of the Constitution (the Preamble and the first 10 Amendments - 'The Bill of Rights’) also the Declaration of Independence...the language statement - as well as the noun-over-noun, is always The People - the State - The central government. Bottom up governmental power and direction Amendments after the 14th, because of the 14th, shifts the language sequence and the meaning - from the Central government - back to the States - and then dictates down to the People, shifts the intention of governing and newly establishes the power of who will govern over who will be governed. While the language may sound desirous to the casual examination - the intended consequence and future consequence, it is where we establish our argument.
*It is also important to note that we focus our argument solely toward the Amendments that have fundamentally shifted the focus of government. We argue only those. There is much objectionable legislation that many do not support. To go after those in piecemeal, while each may be worthwhile, is a selfish expenditure of energy – effort - and precious time. Let us concentrate our best efforts in "1 fatal shot" and go after whatever offenses remain - in the subsequent period after ratification of the 28 Amendment.
'The Historical Context' is paramount to our discussion. 'HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE'. The events and the attitudes and circumstances that were happening at the time of introduction and ratification of the 14th-16th-17th Amendments.
The original language came from men who had fought for and won their freedom from an oppressive government; and who sought to draft a contract that would live forever beyond them - that would serve and maintain the freedom and the liberties for all the people of this Nation - that they had dearly paid for and won.
The historical context of the birth of the 14th is critically very different. The drafters and the sponsors of that language and legislation were men of a very different period and perspective. The Civil War has just ended. We have been a Nation of one citizen warring against another - a "house divided". We had been a society that accepted servitude and enslavement of another human being - who had yet to know or define a 'new citizen'. There were many persons who had earned their freedom through servitude in payment for passage to this new country, a society of new "freeman" established by the 13th Amendment and then compliance won by the Civil War, and a newly arrived and poorly provisioned and uneducated immigrant society, having newly arrived here from another country to seek a better life. "CITIZENSHIP" WAS NOT DEFINED AND COMPLIANCE RECOGNIZED ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, following the Civil War - and at this time of tremendous population expansion. IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE/OR EXCUSE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE DAY AND FAILURE TO HAVE DONE SO - DESIGNS THE POWER GRAB OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
These leaders sought many things. They included good things (uniting things - functioning laws and policies - judgements that will restore the 'union' and prevent further division), as well as concepts that may not be considered so noble (punishment - the 14th was passed when the Northern States wanted to PUNISH the South and they kicked out all Southern Politicians and replaced them with ones that agreed with the North and would agree to the items required to be returned to the Compact. Ratification of the 14th was a "compelled action" placed upon the Southern States and their citizens before re-admittance would be allowed. All ex-confederates were prohibited from participation in the process - (power for party and personal political gain), (governmental superiority over the common man who has not the education, the intelligence, the cooperation of one another-let alone a 'united states' psychology. They also assumed a large arrogance as part of the educated - elected and powerful - the champions over the defeated class of the society of the day). You need to understand it and see the “parts”, in order to judge the whole.
In group development for this Article V project, we quickly understood that historical context is vital to understanding the amendments themselves and to accepting and believing in the argument for our proposal for the 28th Amendment. None of us can be effective advocates for this project if we do not fully embrace "the whole picture". There are many others out there that seek an Article V solution for other solutions or agendas...they are not us, nor are their reasons our reasons. Please study all we are offering - gain the wisdom and the understanding of this project - it is in the entirety that you will find the worthiness.
Read the history. Study in the library . Join the discussions and offer your thoughts and ask your questions. We are all studying and learning together. Thank you for reading.
"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and that it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."
Many will try to define the Constitution in the terms of a 120 year long Revisionist History word and modernization program of a LIVING CONSTITUTION. Of course they can provide zero language in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION that authorizes the drifting changes of time and place. As Jefferson said – “Bind them down with the heavy chains of the CONSTITUTION”. - L.Y.
RESTORE THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
Economics as a serious subject and has proved itself to be a BLACK-ART-like WEATHER FORECASTING or STOCK TRADING entity; they all attempt to create future predictions of events based on what happened over the last years, decades or centuries. It is just making a SEMI-EDUCATED guess. Let the true Free Enterprise function without regulation and rules, for it is what built the miracle called the GREAT AMERICAN EXPERIMENT. After the factual really Free Enterprise system build the strongest economic engine, here came the Economist claiming to understand a better method to regulate and protect the people from normal business cycles and natural agriculture droughts.
Well we now see the results of such desires to CONTROL [regulate or make regular] the economic engines based on some created metrics. The world argues over the metrics selected but no the inaccuracies of the guess on history results. To accomplish this MAKE REGULAR desire humans have given up freedom of economic activity yield to huge taxes to pay for the regulation and studies to reconstruct history and then to extrapolate to show some contrived future. It is PURE BLACK MAGIC.
We the People must RESTORE THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND END THE LIMITS ON FREEDOMS AND LIBERTY.
Well we now see the results of such desires to CONTROL [regulate or make regular] the economic engines based on some created metrics. The world argues over the metrics selected but no the inaccuracies of the guess on history results. To accomplish this MAKE REGULAR desire humans have given up freedom of economic activity yield to huge taxes to pay for the regulation and studies to reconstruct history and then to extrapolate to show some contrived future. It is PURE BLACK MAGIC.
We the People must RESTORE THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND END THE LIMITS ON FREEDOMS AND LIBERTY.
Preamble Note
(We must keep in mind that the Preamble of the Constitution is not the law, it is to introduce the laws.)
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.
The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
The newly minted document began with a grand flourish of words in the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.
We the People of the United States
The Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.
in Order to form a more perfect Union
The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.
establish Justice
Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.
insure domestic Tranquility
One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.
provide for the common defence
The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.
promote the general Welfare
This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
Article I follows the above and that is the first part of the Constitution and its limits on government. IMO the Preamble has no force of law but is introductory to the law of the land and the establishment of the RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT RULE - BY - MAN that a democracy would use.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html
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.
The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
The newly minted document began with a grand flourish of words in the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.
We the People of the United States
The Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.
in Order to form a more perfect Union
The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.
establish Justice
Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.
insure domestic Tranquility
One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.
provide for the common defence
The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.
promote the general Welfare
This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
Article I follows the above and that is the first part of the Constitution and its limits on government. IMO the Preamble has no force of law but is introductory to the law of the land and the establishment of the RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT RULE - BY - MAN that a democracy would use.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html
First Annual Message
Thomas Jefferson : First Annual Message to Congress
First Annual Message
December 8, 1801
FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The fortifications of our harbors, more or less advanced, present considerations of great difficulty. While some of them are on a scale sufficiently proportioned to the advantages of their position, to the efficacy of their protection, and the importance of the points within it, others are so extensive, will cost so much in their first erection, so much in their maintenance, and require such a force to garrison them, as to make it questionable what is best now to be done. A statement of those commenced or projected, of the expenses already incurred, and estimates of their future cost, so far as can be foreseen, shall be laid before you, that you may be enabled to judge whether any attention is necessary in the laws respecting this subject.
Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed. If in the course of your observations or inquiries they should appear to need any aid within the limits of our constitutional powers, your sense of their importance is a sufficient assurance they will occupy your attention. We cannot, indeed, but all feel an anxious solicitude for the difficulties under which our carrying trade will soon be placed. How far it can be relieved, otherwise than by time, is a subject of important consideration.
The judiciary system of the United States, and especially that portion of it recently erected, will of course present itself to the contemplation of Congress: and that they may be able to judge of the proportion which the institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several States, and now lay before Congress, an exact statement of all the causes decided since the first establishment of the courts, and of those which were depending when additional courts and judges were brought in to their aid.
And while on the judiciary organization, it will be worthy your consideration, whether the protection of the inestimable institution of juries has been extended to all the cases involving the security of our persons and property. Their impartial selection also being essential to their value, we ought further to consider whether that is sufficiently secured in those States where they are named by a marshal depending on executive will, or designated by the court or by officers dependent on them.
I cannot omit recommending a revisal of the laws on the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a residence of fourteen years is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their first settlement by many of these States, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity. And shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a _bona fide_ purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us? with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war, that no endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress it.
These, fellow citizens, are the matters respecting the state of the nation, which I have thought of importance to be submitted to your consideration at this time. Some others of less moment, or not yet ready for communication, will be the subject of separate messages. I am happy in this opportunity of committing the arduous affairs of our government to the collected wisdom of the Union. Nothing shall be wanting on my part to inform, as far as in my power, the legislative judgment, nor to carry that judgment into faithful execution. The prudence and temperance of your discussions will promote, within your own walls, that conciliation which so much befriends national conclusion; and by its example will encourage among our constituents that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in object and in will. That all should be satisfied with any one order of things is not to be expected, but I indulge the pleasing persuasion that the great body of our citizens will cordially concur in honest and disinterested efforts, which have for their object to preserve the general and State governments in their constitutional form and equilibrium; to maintain peace abroad, and order and obedience to the laws at home; to establish principles and practices of administration favorable to the security of liberty and prosperity, and to reduce expenses to what is necessary for the useful purposes of government.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffmes1.asp [the source link]
First Annual Message
December 8, 1801
FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The fortifications of our harbors, more or less advanced, present considerations of great difficulty. While some of them are on a scale sufficiently proportioned to the advantages of their position, to the efficacy of their protection, and the importance of the points within it, others are so extensive, will cost so much in their first erection, so much in their maintenance, and require such a force to garrison them, as to make it questionable what is best now to be done. A statement of those commenced or projected, of the expenses already incurred, and estimates of their future cost, so far as can be foreseen, shall be laid before you, that you may be enabled to judge whether any attention is necessary in the laws respecting this subject.
Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed. If in the course of your observations or inquiries they should appear to need any aid within the limits of our constitutional powers, your sense of their importance is a sufficient assurance they will occupy your attention. We cannot, indeed, but all feel an anxious solicitude for the difficulties under which our carrying trade will soon be placed. How far it can be relieved, otherwise than by time, is a subject of important consideration.
The judiciary system of the United States, and especially that portion of it recently erected, will of course present itself to the contemplation of Congress: and that they may be able to judge of the proportion which the institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several States, and now lay before Congress, an exact statement of all the causes decided since the first establishment of the courts, and of those which were depending when additional courts and judges were brought in to their aid.
And while on the judiciary organization, it will be worthy your consideration, whether the protection of the inestimable institution of juries has been extended to all the cases involving the security of our persons and property. Their impartial selection also being essential to their value, we ought further to consider whether that is sufficiently secured in those States where they are named by a marshal depending on executive will, or designated by the court or by officers dependent on them.
I cannot omit recommending a revisal of the laws on the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a residence of fourteen years is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their first settlement by many of these States, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity. And shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a _bona fide_ purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us? with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war, that no endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress it.
These, fellow citizens, are the matters respecting the state of the nation, which I have thought of importance to be submitted to your consideration at this time. Some others of less moment, or not yet ready for communication, will be the subject of separate messages. I am happy in this opportunity of committing the arduous affairs of our government to the collected wisdom of the Union. Nothing shall be wanting on my part to inform, as far as in my power, the legislative judgment, nor to carry that judgment into faithful execution. The prudence and temperance of your discussions will promote, within your own walls, that conciliation which so much befriends national conclusion; and by its example will encourage among our constituents that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in object and in will. That all should be satisfied with any one order of things is not to be expected, but I indulge the pleasing persuasion that the great body of our citizens will cordially concur in honest and disinterested efforts, which have for their object to preserve the general and State governments in their constitutional form and equilibrium; to maintain peace abroad, and order and obedience to the laws at home; to establish principles and practices of administration favorable to the security of liberty and prosperity, and to reduce expenses to what is necessary for the useful purposes of government.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffmes1.asp [the source link]
Original Intent
Jefferson on words used in the Constituion
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812.
Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning
Posted by Rob Natelson
It is often said that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its “original intent, “original understanding,” or “original meaning.” Is there any difference between these concepts? And if so, which is the proper standard?
This is an area in which there has been a great deal of confusion, largely because few constitutional writers are familiar with how 18th-century lawyers and judges construed documents.
We can begin clearing the confusion by defining the terms. The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.
The original understanding of a constitutional provision usually refers to the subjective opinion of the 1648 state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution. Principal sources are the records of the ratifying debates. For example, if Delegate X explained a provision in the document in a particular way and no one contradicted him, then (particularly if Delegate X was a proponent) you can infer that other delegates understood the provision the same way. Indirect and circumstantial evidence for original understanding include what Framers and commentators said about the provision, as well as the meaning of the words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources.
The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.
Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.
But differences do occur. For example, during the 1787 drafting convention, John Dickinson stated, without contradiction, that ex post facto laws were always retroactive criminal laws, and did not include retroactive civil laws. (Examples of the latter are retroactive taxes and statutes to cure defective legal proceedings.) That, apparently, formed the Framers’ original intent. But during the ratification debates, it became clear that many, perhaps most, people thought that an ex post facto law might be civil as well as criminal (original meaning). So the ratifiers worked out a deal by which the term was understood include only criminal laws. This was the original understanding.
In the event of a conflict between intent, understanding and meaning, which should control?
The key to answering that question is to answer another: “When the Constitution was adopted, what was its legal force? In other words, how would the courts of the time have interpreted it?
The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, so you can find the correct response to this question by investigating how judges, and other lawyers and public officials interpreted legal documents of the same general kind during the Founding Era. In 2005, I spent much of a sabbatical at Oxford University researching this question. I learned the following:
* Most legal documents, including state constitutions, were interpreted according to the “intent of the makers” of the document.
* Just as a statute was interpreted by the intent of the legislators who gave it force rather than by the intent of the legislative staffers who wrote it, the Constitution was to be interpreted by the understanding of the ratifiers who gave it force rather than the intent of the Framers who wrote it.
* When judges and other lawyers referred to the “intent of the makers” they meant the genuine subjective intent. The subjective intent of the ratifiers is the same as original understanding.
* Where the original understanding was not recoverable, either because the evidence was lacking or hopeless contradictory, Founding-Era courts and lawyers applied the meaning a reasonable person would have given a term—that is, original meaning.
Thus, the original legal force of the Constitution—as it would have been applied by Founding-Era judges, lawyers, and officials—is based on the original understanding; if this is not recoverable, then you apply the original meaning. Original intent is useful only insofar as it tends to prove understanding or meaning.
More discussion on this topic appears in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant. Those who wish detailed citations and full scholarly discussion can read the article that emerged from my Oxford research: The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
http://eepurl.com/bd1YY
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812.
Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning
Posted by Rob Natelson
It is often said that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its “original intent, “original understanding,” or “original meaning.” Is there any difference between these concepts? And if so, which is the proper standard?
This is an area in which there has been a great deal of confusion, largely because few constitutional writers are familiar with how 18th-century lawyers and judges construed documents.
We can begin clearing the confusion by defining the terms. The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.
The original understanding of a constitutional provision usually refers to the subjective opinion of the 1648 state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution. Principal sources are the records of the ratifying debates. For example, if Delegate X explained a provision in the document in a particular way and no one contradicted him, then (particularly if Delegate X was a proponent) you can infer that other delegates understood the provision the same way. Indirect and circumstantial evidence for original understanding include what Framers and commentators said about the provision, as well as the meaning of the words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources.
The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.
Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.
But differences do occur. For example, during the 1787 drafting convention, John Dickinson stated, without contradiction, that ex post facto laws were always retroactive criminal laws, and did not include retroactive civil laws. (Examples of the latter are retroactive taxes and statutes to cure defective legal proceedings.) That, apparently, formed the Framers’ original intent. But during the ratification debates, it became clear that many, perhaps most, people thought that an ex post facto law might be civil as well as criminal (original meaning). So the ratifiers worked out a deal by which the term was understood include only criminal laws. This was the original understanding.
In the event of a conflict between intent, understanding and meaning, which should control?
The key to answering that question is to answer another: “When the Constitution was adopted, what was its legal force? In other words, how would the courts of the time have interpreted it?
The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, so you can find the correct response to this question by investigating how judges, and other lawyers and public officials interpreted legal documents of the same general kind during the Founding Era. In 2005, I spent much of a sabbatical at Oxford University researching this question. I learned the following:
* Most legal documents, including state constitutions, were interpreted according to the “intent of the makers” of the document.
* Just as a statute was interpreted by the intent of the legislators who gave it force rather than by the intent of the legislative staffers who wrote it, the Constitution was to be interpreted by the understanding of the ratifiers who gave it force rather than the intent of the Framers who wrote it.
* When judges and other lawyers referred to the “intent of the makers” they meant the genuine subjective intent. The subjective intent of the ratifiers is the same as original understanding.
* Where the original understanding was not recoverable, either because the evidence was lacking or hopeless contradictory, Founding-Era courts and lawyers applied the meaning a reasonable person would have given a term—that is, original meaning.
Thus, the original legal force of the Constitution—as it would have been applied by Founding-Era judges, lawyers, and officials—is based on the original understanding; if this is not recoverable, then you apply the original meaning. Original intent is useful only insofar as it tends to prove understanding or meaning.
More discussion on this topic appears in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant. Those who wish detailed citations and full scholarly discussion can read the article that emerged from my Oxford research: The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
http://eepurl.com/bd1YY
Is The Constitution A Living Breathing Document?
Living Constitution
https:// theconstitutionalconservatives .com/forum/topics/ constitution-101-living-and- breathing-is-the-same-as-dead
Supreme Court
http://www.libertylawsite.org/ 2017/06/21/the-living- constitution-on-the-supreme- courts-website/
Living Constitution
https:// theconstitutionalconservatives .com/forum/topics/ constitution-101-living-and- breathing-is-the-same-as-dead
Supreme Court
http://www.libertylawsite.org/ 2017/06/21/the-living- constitution-on-the-supreme- courts-website/