Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,

But if you ask them, it's the other way around. They think liberals want to trash the constitution, think they are the ones upholding it.

They lie a lot just like their hero, Il Douche.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jarod,

I just wondered if with a little education some might see the errors of their ways.

Dreaming is fun.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jarod,

Its becoming more and more clear to me the Defeated President is done. These people still exist, waiting for another justification to come back from their hiding places.

No he is not. We have to lock him up to keep him out of office.

 

[Jarod]

Agreed. Going after a former President is an unusual thing. Nixon was the last. He was smart enough to resign and forestall legal action. That won't happen with Trump.

TrumpCo has some very serious problems facing it. Trump himself is going to get exactly what he wanted: The most famous President in the 21st Century. ROFLMAO

Stephanie Grisham stated in a CNN interview this morning that Ivanka was "the voice of reason" in the room. She also stated that Trump liked to have private meetings in the residence, not the Oval Office, leading up to the Insurrection plot. Although Grisham knows (and testified) who was in these meetings, she never knew what happened in them.

Secrecy can be evidence of conciousness of guilt.

 

[Jarod]

Hello Jarod,



Well, as soon as you wanted to talk about promoting the general welfare the right was out. No interest. They simply lack the capacity to even recognize those words. It's like the first half of the second amendment. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't exist.

This is my point, they need to learn about the Constitution if they are going to pretend things are unconstitutional.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Secrecy can be evidence of conciousness of guilt.

True. It's circumstantial but is evidence that a closer look is warranted. The fact that every time a state takes a closer look at TrumpCo they find dirt should be disturbing to many.

In 2016 I recall an interview of business/political insiders who commented that Trump was warned that by running for President, his businesses and personal activities would come under intense scrutiny for any crimes. Trump blew them off. LOL

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jarod,

This is my point, they need to learn about the Constitution if they are going to pretend things are unconstitutional.

Good luck. The right will not listen to reason. They get all their knowledge from entertainment pundits who testify in court that everyone should know they cannot be relied upon to report fact.

We have to wonder why it is called the right when they have such a penchant for getting things so wrong!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

This is my point, they need to learn about the Constitution if they are going to pretend things are unconstitutional.

Good theory but you're referencing limp-dicked geezers living in a retirement facility with nothing to do but support Trump and hate America ideals of freedom, democracy and unity.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

this is just the start. If and when I have time I will continue with other parts of the constitution. Parts are important, including the preamble. Very significant part of the preamble is the promotion of the common good. The writers were very specific about the words they chose the capitalizations and the sentence structure.

It’s more than just a forward, it’s an intention statement, that can be used when discussing the framers intent in later portions.

Actually, not. The preamble is like an executive summary in a long report. It isn't the 'meat and potatoes' of the Constitution and is essentially a throw-away sentence in importance.

The Constitution, as written, was meant as a check on government, a restraint. "To promote the common welfare" is so vague a statement as to be meaningless other than as a platitude. What restraint is placed on that statement? What are the limits of it? That's how the rest of the Constitution is framed, so why would those writing it put in a clause or sentence that could be interpreted so broadly as to render most of the rest of the document meaningless unless that sentence was meant to be meaningless?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Translation: Fuck the Preamble. Trump can shit all over it because "It isn't law".

Agreed it's not law, but disagreed that you and your fellow traitors can shit all over it.


BTW, more and more Republicans are supporting the Republican party over the Party of Trump. How long before houses that sport Trump stickers and flags are treated like those with Nazi flags?

Eggs? TP? A gallon of gasoline? Some people are truly fucking stupid....but sometimes are useful idiots.

Get some professional help dude. Your TDS is at insane levels.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Whew! That explains it. I thought a lot of them were paranoid schizos. Good to know they're just limp-dicked geezer losers.

Son, you are derp!

Just For Men commercial lookin' motherfucker

 

[Jarod]

Actually, not. The preamble is like an executive summary in a long report. It isn't the 'meat and potatoes' of the Constitution and is essentially a throw-away sentence in importance.

The Constitution, as written, was meant as a check on government, a restraint. "To promote the common welfare" is so vague a statement as to be meaningless other than as a platitude. What restraint is placed on that statement? What are the limits of it? That's how the rest of the Constitution is framed, so why would those writing it put in a clause or sentence that could be interpreted so broadly as to render most of the rest of the document meaningless unless that sentence was meant to be meaningless?

Why include a meaningless sentence? The Courts have said you are wrong. There is significant meaning in the preamble, its a roadmap for how to read the remainder. I agree it does not carry force of law, but it is significant to show the intent of the founders. I do not believe any word in the Constitution is meaningless.

 

[BidenPresident]

Why include a meaningless sentence? The Courts have said you are wrong. There is significant meaning in the preamble, its a roadmap for how to read the remainder. I agree it does not carry force of law, but it is significant to show the intent of the founders. I do not believe any word in the Constitution is meaningless.

The right wing is very selective about what is in the Constitution. They believe "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment is a meaningless phrase and can be ignored.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why include a meaningless sentence? The Courts have said you are wrong. There is significant meaning in the preamble, its a roadmap for how to read the remainder. I agree it does not carry force of law, but it is significant to show the intent of the founders. I do not believe any word in the Constitution is meaningless.

Why not? It also doesn't answer the question posed: If "promote the general welfare" means something legally, what are the limits on it?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The right wing is very selective about what is in the Constitution. They believe "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment is a meaningless phrase and can be ignored.

The "Militia" has meaning. The Orgainzed militia consists today of the National Guard. The unorganized militia is the people themselves. Much like Switzerland, as an example, the idea is that every able-bodied citizen is part of the militia and defends the nation when necessary. Thus, keeping military grade weapons by individual citizens is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[evince]

Okay, so? The preamble is just a general statement about what the constitution is for. It isn't law, it isn't legal standing to use to create law. That comes in what follows, not the preamble. It's like a forward or introduction to a book, not the contents of the book itself.

Dear fucking idiot


If you claim to be an “intent of the founders” person it means everything fool



Fuck you very much

 

[evince]

Son, you are derp!

Just For Men commercial lookin' motherfucker

That last picture is you huh

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"We 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."


These 52 words were presented to the Constitutional Convention by the "Committee on Style" and adopted to be what we call the Preamble to the Constitution. It is as good of a place to start our study of the United States Constitution as any. While there is debate as to the use of the Preamble to establish law and or structure of American government, it is clearly an attempt to set the tone and explain what the document is, how it is to be viewed and the what the document is intended to be and do.

1) "We the People of the United States..." The first seven words show us the class of people who this document applies to... There were several drafts of this portion of the Constitution including "We the people of the various states" as is used in the Articles of Confederation and there was" or "We the People of the various states" and "The People of the united States... (listing them)" as was used in the Treaty of France. It is commonly noted that the drafters did not know how many States would sign on so listing them was a bad idea. The choice of the novel previously unused phrase "We the People of the United States" creates the existence of an actual Nation of people called the United States... Note that they capitalized the phrase "United States" making it an entity on its own. The States are not even mentioned in the preamble.

2) "In Order to form a more perfect Union" - The reason the Constitution was written, and to establish its supremacy over the previous Government created by the Articles of Confederation.

3) "This Constitution..." is also another important phrase, establishing that this is it, the entirety of what is to be considered The Constitution, establishing that it was to be this single document as distinguished from what English Government calls its Document which is a series of Writings and Documents cobbled together to establish the form and structure of their government. The single document Constitution was a novel idea for these former English Subjects.

4) Particularly interesting is the actual power the "Preamble" has had when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court has used it to illustrate the intent of the framers as to what powers they actually intended to give with the subsequent Articles. In, Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) the Court held that the term "promote the general welfare.." illustrates that the writers intended to give the Federal Government powers that enabled them to promote the general welfare, in that case use the right of eminent domain.

Much of what is in the preamble is included in the later document.

We the People of the United States, - defined in Art IV section 2
in Order to form a more perfect Union, - Art IV, Art VII
establish Justice, Art III
insure domestic Tranquility, Art IV section 4
provide for the common defense, Art I, Art II, Art IV
promote the general Welfare, Art I Section 8 Paragraph 1 It is specifically mentioned as a power of Congress

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, - a wishful outcome for all of the above but the ability to unsecure anything is in Art V
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Art VII

 

[evince]

Actually, not. The preamble is like an executive summary in a long report. It isn't the 'meat and potatoes' of the Constitution and is essentially a throw-away sentence in importance.

The Constitution, as written, was meant as a check on government, a restraint. "To promote the common welfare" is so vague a statement as to be meaningless other than as a platitude. What restraint is placed on that statement? What are the limits of it? That's how the rest of the Constitution is framed, so why would those writing it put in a clause or sentence that could be interpreted so broadly as to render most of the rest of the document meaningless unless that sentence was meant to be meaningless?

They told us their intent



If it was throw away they would have thrown it away


You have no interest in the founders INTENT


THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT



It was always a right wing bullshit lie

 

[Jarod]

Why not? It also doesn't answer the question posed: If "promote the general welfare" means something legally, what are the limits on it?

The reason not to include something meaningless in a legal document is because it might be misconstrued to mean something unintended.

Well, the question about what the limits are is a big debate and needs to be answered during our study of the rest of the document.