[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000000","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/0\/essays\/1\/preamble\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EPreamble\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      The Preamble\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Preamble was placed in the Constitution\u0026nbsp;more or less as an afterthought. It was not proposed\u0026nbsp;or discussed on the floor of the Constitutional\u0026nbsp;Convention. Rather, Gouverneur Morris,\u0026nbsp;a delegate from Pennsylvania, who as a member\u0026nbsp;of the Committee of Style actually drafted the\u0026nbsp;near-final text of the Constitution, composed\u0026nbsp;it at the last moment. It is likely that the Committee\u0026nbsp;assigned him to do so, inasmuch as such\u0026nbsp;preambles were common practice in the era.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ENevertheless, it was Morris who gave the\u0026nbsp;considered purposes of the Constitution coherent\u0026nbsp;shape, and the Preamble was the capstone\u0026nbsp;of his expository gift. The Preamble does not,\u0026nbsp;in itself, have substantive legal meaning. The\u0026nbsp;understanding at the time was that preambles are\u0026nbsp;merely declaratory and are to be read as defining\u0026nbsp;rather than granting or limiting power\u2014a view\u0026nbsp;sustained by the Supreme Court in \u003Cem\u003EJacobson v.\u0026nbsp;Massachusetts \u003C\/em\u003E(1905).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Preamble has considerable potency,\u0026nbsp;however, by virtue of its specification of the\u0026nbsp;purposes for which the Constitution exists. It\u0026nbsp;identifies the legal power\u2014the union\u2014called\u0026nbsp;into existence by the Constitution and distills\u0026nbsp;the underlying values that moved the Framers\u0026nbsp;during their long debates in Philadelphia. As\u0026nbsp;Justice Joseph Story put it in his celebrated \u003Cem\u003ECommentaries\u0026nbsp;on the Constitution of the United States\u003C\/em\u003E\u0026nbsp;(1833), \u201cits true office is to expound the nature,\u0026nbsp;and extent, and application of the powers actually\u0026nbsp;conferred by the Constitution.\u201d Alexander\u0026nbsp;Hamilton, in \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist \u003C\/em\u003ENo. 84, went so far\u0026nbsp;as to assert that the words \u201csecure the blessings\u0026nbsp;of liberty to ourselves and our posterity\u201d were \u201ca\u0026nbsp;better recognition of popular rights than volumes\u0026nbsp;of those aphorisms which make the principal\u0026nbsp;figure in several of our State bills of rights.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAn appreciation of the Preamble begins\u0026nbsp;with a comparison of it to its counterpart in the\u0026nbsp;compact the Constitution replaced, the Articles\u0026nbsp;of Confederation. There, the states joined in \u201ca\u0026nbsp;firm league of friendship with each other, for\u0026nbsp;their common defence, security of their Liberties,\u0026nbsp;and their mutual and general welfare\u201d and bound\u0026nbsp;themselves to assist one another \u201cagainst all force\u0026nbsp;offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of\u0026nbsp;them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade,\u0026nbsp;or any other pretence whatever.\u201d The agreement\u0026nbsp;was among states, not people, and the safety and\u0026nbsp;liberties to be secured were the safety and liberties\u0026nbsp;of the states.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe very opening words of the Constitution,\u0026nbsp;\u201cWe the People of the United States,\u201d presume the\u0026nbsp;language of the Declaration of Independence, in\u0026nbsp;which the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen\u0026nbsp;united States\u201d declared the sense of \u201cone\u0026nbsp;people.\u201d It was therefore at striking variance with\u0026nbsp;the prevailing norm, in that the word \u201cpeople\u201d\u0026nbsp;had not been used in documents ranging from\u0026nbsp;the Articles of Confederation drafted in 1777\u0026nbsp;and the 1778 treaty of alliance with France to\u0026nbsp;the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American\u0026nbsp;independence, and the phrase \u201cthe United States\u201d\u0026nbsp;was followed by a listing of the states (\u201cviz., New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-Island\u0026nbsp;and Providence Plantations,\u201d and so on down\u0026nbsp;to Georgia).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe new phraseology was necessary, given\u0026nbsp;the circumstances. The Constitutional Convention\u0026nbsp;had provided that when the popularly\u0026nbsp;elected ratifying conventions of nine states had\u0026nbsp;approved the Constitution, it would go into effect\u0026nbsp;for those nine, notwithstanding whether any of\u0026nbsp;the remaining states ratified. Inasmuch as no\u0026nbsp;one could know which states would and which\u0026nbsp;would not ratify, the Convention could not list all\u0026nbsp;thirteen. Moreover, states\u2019 names could scarcely\u0026nbsp;be added to the Preamble retroactively as they\u0026nbsp;were admitted. Even so, the phraseology set off\u0026nbsp;howls of protest from a number of opponents\u0026nbsp;of ratification, notably Patrick Henry. Henry\u0026nbsp;charged that the failure to follow the usual form\u0026nbsp;indicated an intention to create a \u201cconsolidated\u201d\u0026nbsp;national government instead of the system that\u0026nbsp;James Madison described in\u003Cem\u003E The Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E No.\u0026nbsp;39 as being \u201cneither a national nor a federal constitution,\u0026nbsp;but a composition of both.\u201d Henry\u2019s\u0026nbsp;assertion in the Virginia ratifying convention was\u0026nbsp;promptly and devastatingly rebutted by Governor\u0026nbsp;Edmund Randolph: \u201cThe government is for the\u0026nbsp;people; and the misfortune was, that the people\u0026nbsp;had no agency in the government before . . . If the\u0026nbsp;government is to be binding on the people, are\u0026nbsp;not the people the proper persons to examine\u0026nbsp;its merits or defects?\u201d Randolph made clear that\u0026nbsp;the \u201cpeople\u201d and not the \u201cstates\u201d acting through\u0026nbsp;their established governments were the ratifying\u0026nbsp;authority, a deliberate move on the part of the\u0026nbsp;drafters of the Constitution. We should also note\u0026nbsp;that George Washington\u2019s \u201cletter of transmittal\u0022\u0026nbsp;which reported the Convention\u2019s work to the\u0026nbsp;Confederation Congress specifically referred to\u0026nbsp;the drafted \u201cconsolidation of our Union,\u201d meaning\u0026nbsp;that Henry spoke accurately but not quite to\u0026nbsp;the point.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Preamble\u2019s first-mentioned purpose\u0026nbsp;of the Constitution, \u201cto form a more perfect\u0026nbsp;Union,\u201d was likewise subjected to misreading\u0026nbsp;by Anti-Federalists. \u201cMore perfect\u201d may strike\u0026nbsp;modern readers as a solecism or as an ambiguous\u0026nbsp;depiction, for \u201cperfect\u201d is now regarded as an\u0026nbsp;absolute term. At the time of the Framing, however,\u0026nbsp;it had no such connotation. For example,\u0026nbsp;Sir William Blackstone, in his widely read \u003Cem\u003ECommentaries\u0026nbsp;on the Laws of England\u003C\/em\u003E, could assert\u0026nbsp;that the constitution of England was perfect but\u0026nbsp;steadily improving. Thus a more perfect union\u0026nbsp;was simply a better and stronger one (one that is\u0026nbsp;more perfected or brought to completion) than\u0026nbsp;had pre-existed the Constitution. Yet a New York\u0026nbsp;Anti-Federalist who wrote under the pseudonym\u0026nbsp;Brutus professed to believe that, to carry out the\u0026nbsp;mandate, it would be \u201cnecessary to abolish all\u0026nbsp;inferior governments, and to give the general\u0026nbsp;one compleat legislative, executive and judicial\u0026nbsp;powers to every purpose.\u201d Madison disposed of\u0026nbsp;that exaggerated fear in \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E No. 46 by\u0026nbsp;demonstrating that \u201cthe powers proposed to be\u0026nbsp;lodged in the federal government, are as little\u0026nbsp;formidable to those reserved to the individual\u0026nbsp;States as they are indispensably necessary to\u0026nbsp;accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that\u0026nbsp;all those alarms which have been sounded of a\u0026nbsp;meditated and consequential annihilation of the\u0026nbsp;State governments must, on the most favourable\u0026nbsp;interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears\u0026nbsp;of the authors of them.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn the second stated objective, to \u201cestablish\u0026nbsp;Justice,\u201d the first word is \u201cestablish,\u201d clearly\u0026nbsp;implying that justice, unlike union, was previously\u0026nbsp;nonexistent. On the face of it, that implication\u0026nbsp;seems hyperbolic, for the American states\u0026nbsp;and local governments had functioning court\u0026nbsp;systems with independent judges, and trial by\u0026nbsp;jury was the norm. But Gouverneur Morris chose\u0026nbsp;the word carefully and meant what he wrote; he\u0026nbsp;and many other Framers thought that the states\u0026nbsp;had run amok and had trampled individual liberties\u0026nbsp;in a variety of ways. The solution was twofold:\u0026nbsp;establish an independent Supreme Court and, if\u0026nbsp;Congress decided, a federal judiciary superior to\u0026nbsp;those of the states and prohibit outright egregious\u0026nbsp;state practices. Moreover, the third and fourth\u0026nbsp;purposes presuppose justice, or just rule, as that\u0026nbsp;for which security against domestic turmoil or\u0026nbsp;foreign invasion is required.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe third avowed purpose, to \u201cinsure\u0026nbsp;domestic Tranquility,\u201d was in a general sense\u0026nbsp;prompted by the longstanding habit of Americans\u0026nbsp;to take up arms against unpopular government\u0026nbsp;measures and was more immediately a response\u0026nbsp;to Shays\u2019 Rebellion in Massachusetts (1786\u20131787)\u0026nbsp;and lesser uprisings in New Hampshire and Delaware.\u0026nbsp;The most important constitutional provisions\u0026nbsp;directed toward that end give Congress\u0026nbsp;ultimate control over the militias (see Article I,\u0026nbsp;Section 8) and guarantee each state a republican\u0026nbsp;form of government and protection against\u0026nbsp;domestic violence (see Article IV, Section 4). One\u0026nbsp;should bear in mind that two rebellions broke out\u0026nbsp;during the first decade under the Constitution,\u0026nbsp;the Whiskey Rebellion (1794) and Fries\u2019s Rebellion\u0026nbsp;(1799), both of which were speedily crushed\u0026nbsp;without the shedding of blood.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe fourth purpose, to \u201cprovide for the\u0026nbsp;common defense,\u201d is obvious\u2014after all, it was\u0026nbsp;by this means the United States came into being.\u0026nbsp;But the matter cannot be dismissed lightly. For\u0026nbsp;the better part of a century Americans had\u0026nbsp;been possessed by a fear of \u201cstanding armies,\u201d\u0026nbsp;insisting that armed forces adequate to defend\u0026nbsp;the nation would also be adequate to enslave it.\u0026nbsp;Besides, ordinary Americans could believe that,\u0026nbsp;since the War for Independence had been won\u0026nbsp;over the best fighting force in Europe under the\u0026nbsp;aegis of the Confederation, further provision\u0026nbsp;was unnecessary as well as dangerous. Anti-Federalists clearly thought along those lines. By\u0026nbsp;and large, those who agreed had seen little of\u0026nbsp;the fighting during the war, whereas veterans\u0026nbsp;of actual combat and people who had served\u0026nbsp;in Congress or the administration during the\u0026nbsp;darkest hours of the war knew differently. They\u0026nbsp;expected that other wars would occur and were\u0026nbsp;determined to be prepared to fight them. The\u0026nbsp;Framers did, however, take fears of standing\u0026nbsp;armies into account, hence their commitment\u0026nbsp;to civilian control of things military, and, for\u0026nbsp;many, the right to bear arms.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe fifth purpose, to \u201cpromote the general\u0026nbsp;Welfare,\u201d had a generally understood meaning at\u0026nbsp;the time of the Constitution. The concept will be\u0026nbsp;developed fully in the discussion of the Spending\u0026nbsp;Clause of Article I, Section 8, but a few comments\u0026nbsp;are germane here. The salient point is that its\u0026nbsp;implications are negative, not positive\u2014a limitation\u0026nbsp;on power, not a grant of power. By definition\u0026nbsp;\u201cgeneral\u201d means applicable to the whole rather\u0026nbsp;than to particular parts or special interests. A\u0026nbsp;single example will illustrate the point. In the\u0026nbsp;late 1790s Alexander Hamilton, an outspoken\u0026nbsp;advocate of loose construction of the Constitution\u0026nbsp;as well as of using the Necessary and Proper\u0026nbsp;Clause to justify a wide range of \u201cimplied powers,\u201d\u0026nbsp;became convinced that a federally financed\u0026nbsp;system of what would soon be called internal\u0026nbsp;improvements\u2014building roads, dredging rivers,\u0026nbsp;digging canals\u2014was in the national interest.\u0026nbsp;But, since each project would be of immediate\u0026nbsp;advantage only to the area where it was located,\u0026nbsp;none could properly be regarded as being in the\u0026nbsp;general welfare. Accordingly, Hamilton believed\u0026nbsp;a constitutional amendment would be necessary\u0026nbsp;if internal improvements were to be undertaken.\u0026nbsp;James Madison, in his second term as president,\u0026nbsp;would veto a congressional bill on precisely that\u0026nbsp;ground.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe sixth purpose of the Constitution is to\u0026nbsp;\u201csecure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and\u0026nbsp;our Posterity.\u201d In broad terms the securing of\u0026nbsp;liberty is a function of the whole Constitution;\u0026nbsp;for the Constitution makes possible the establishment\u0026nbsp;of a government of laws, and liberty\u0026nbsp;without law is meaningless. Special provisions,\u0026nbsp;however, in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 and in\u0026nbsp;Article III were designed to prevent specific\u0026nbsp;dangers to liberty about which history had\u0026nbsp;warned the Framers. Those in Section 9 were\u0026nbsp;drawn from the example of English history:\u0026nbsp;the prohibitions against suspending the writ\u0026nbsp;of habeas corpus, against bills of attainder and\u0026nbsp;ex post facto laws, and against granting titles\u0026nbsp;of nobility. In addition, Article III, Section 2,guaranteed trial by jury in criminal cases, andSection 3 defined treason extremely narrowly\u0026nbsp;and prohibited corruption of the blood to protect\u0026nbsp;innocent relatives from being punished.\u0026nbsp;These are protections of individual liberty,\u0026nbsp;not the liberty of states as under the Articles\u0026nbsp;of Confederation. What the Preamble conveys\u0026nbsp;is a clear sense that the purpose of this form of\u0026nbsp;government entails certain consequences of\u0026nbsp;liberty, and logically rejects consequences that\u0026nbsp;are contradictions to liberty itself, such as the\u0026nbsp;liberty to enslave others, a problem patently\u0026nbsp;evident to many of the Framers themselves, but\u0026nbsp;one which was abided so that the entire enterprise\u0026nbsp;of republican government would not be\u0026nbsp;derailed at its start.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ETo the extent that liberty confirms the right\u0026nbsp;of consent for rational beings capable of choice, it\u0026nbsp;depends for its continued existence as well as its\u0026nbsp;efficacy on what James Wilson called the equal,\u0026nbsp;honest, and impartial administration of the laws.\u0026nbsp;The provision for the rule of law is crucial to\u0026nbsp;curbing the excesses of liberty\u2014a strengthening\u0026nbsp;of liberty\u2019s \u201cblessings\u201d\u2014and therefore central in\u0026nbsp;fostering moral virtue.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe restrictions in Article I, Section 10,\u0026nbsp;apply to the state governments and were born\u0026nbsp;of more recent history. The states are forbidden,\u0026nbsp;among other things, to issue paper money, to\u0026nbsp;make anything but gold and silver legal tender,\u0026nbsp;or to pass bills of attainder, ex post facto laws,\u0026nbsp;or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.\u0026nbsp;All these mischievous kinds of laws had in fact\u0026nbsp;been enacted by the states since the Declaration\u0026nbsp;of Independence.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThat brings us back to another point about\u0026nbsp;the \u201cgeneral Welfare\u201d and enables us to arrive at\u0026nbsp;a broader understanding of the Preamble than\u0026nbsp;is possible through a provision-by-provision\u0026nbsp;analysis. Some historians have argued that the\u0026nbsp;philosophy or ideology of the Constitution was\u0026nbsp;at variance with that of the Declaration; indeed,\u0026nbsp;several have described the adoption of the Constitution\u0026nbsp;as a counter-Revolution. But consider\u0026nbsp;this: the Declaration refers to God-given rights\u0026nbsp;to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The\u0026nbsp;Preamble introduces a document whose stated\u0026nbsp;purpose is to secure the rights of life and liberty.\u0026nbsp;And what of happiness? Once again the word\u0026nbsp;\u201cWelfare\u201d is crucial: in the eighteenth century the\u0026nbsp;definition of welfare included well-being, but it\u0026nbsp;also and equally encompassed happiness.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Preamble as a whole, then, declares that\u0026nbsp;the Constitution is designed to secure precisely\u0026nbsp;the rights proclaimed in the Declaration. The\u0026nbsp;Constitution was therefore not the negation of\u0026nbsp;the Revolution; it was the Revolution\u2019s fulfillment.\u0026nbsp;What the Declaration sets forth as the\u0026nbsp;reason for the people acting \u003Cem\u003Ein\u003C\/em\u003E the Revolution\u0026nbsp;has been repeated in the Preamble as \u003Cem\u003Ethe end\u003C\/em\u003E for\u0026nbsp;which the people exist as a people. And this end,\u0026nbsp;most notably, is promised not just to the people,\u0026nbsp;but to \u201cposterity.\u201d In that sense, it emphatically\u0026nbsp;endorses the transcendent moral purpose of both\u0026nbsp;the Revolution and the move to \u201cordain and\u0026nbsp;establish\u201d the Constitution. The Preamble is far\u0026nbsp;more a statement of the people\u2019s duties than their\u0026nbsp;hopes, duties by which they are honor bound to\u0026nbsp;hold the government both politically and legally\u0026nbsp;accountable.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Forrest_McDonald.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.as.ua.edu\/history\/html\/faculty\/mcdonald.html\u0022\u003EForrest McDonald\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Distinguished University Research Professor Emeritus, University of Alabama\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000000-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000000-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000000-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000000-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPeter Charles Hoffer,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EFor Ourselves and Our Posterity: The Preamble to the Federal Constitution in American History\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/em\u003E(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000000-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000000-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000127\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EGuarantee Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]