Political philosophy or not? The Preamble to the US Constitution.

“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.”

So begins the Constitution of the United States; a document which has been subjected to a range of treatment, from abuse to neglect, from inspired innovation to utter corruption. This particular exercise is about an idea that came to me some time ago, but always lingered on the edge of seeming too pretentious to pursue; after all, lacking social currency, I am clearly no scholar of the subject, nor am I aligned with a proponent of any particular ideology of governance. My meager credentials are not noteworthy; though I was raised to believe that principle, the right to express an honest opinion, was central to freedom. That principle allowed our founding fathers the privilege to begin a new experiment in governance, one that had never before found expression in the world.

The resulting Constitution was intended to address the contemporary stresses of the time, cope with anticipated developments, and secure against future abuse, insofar as humanly possible. But that it was a product of its time is not in question; rather, can we trust the foresight and linguistic legerdemain of the crafters to have indelibly secured the spirit in which it was made?

I believe the preamble, which begins “We the people,” was meant to color the intent and scope of the Constitution in its entirety. Each amendment must be subject to the particular drumbeat the preamble establishes. Personally, I suspect that the authors, either slyly or accidentally embedded in the preamble, the key to the salvation of the United States from any disingenuous attempts to betray its spirit.

So, with the kind readers’ permission, I would like to dissemble this simple, but wide-ranging sentiment, as expressed by those we have come to refer to as the founding fathers. I found it interesting to reflect upon those words or phrases within the preamble which the authors saw fit to capitalize. The effort presumably had a reason, it appears intentional.
The following words or phrases appear to be stressed with capitalization:

1 - “We the People”
2 - “United States”
3 - “Order”
4 - “Union”
5 - “Justice”
6 - “Tranquility”
7 - “Welfare”
8 - “Blessings of Liberty”
9 - “Posterity”

One:

From the start, the single major actor in the establishment of a government designed to serve was identified…, namely “We the People.” Note this is a rather unambiguous idea. The governed establish the government, and the act is done with deliberate intent, as an expression of the citizens’ will; born with the utterance; “The United States;” her power comes from the people. It was “We” who made it so. Therefore the government is “Ours” and we are NOT “Her” people, unlike other nations, the institution of the government was not to rule over us, it was to serve under us. Our nation rejects that citizenship is a matter of blood, religion, tribe, or class. (We must not forget that at the time, the most heinous social ailment of the day was allowed to persist; we allowed political ‘expedience’ to delay our recognition of the obvious truth - that there could be no slavery in a truly ‘free’ society – that error nearly cost us our very existence, some four score and seven years later...)

Two:

“United States” at first blush, can be interpreted as nothing more than what “We the People” decided to call ourselves, but that would be overly simplistic. Here we see a recognition of fact, that this body of people, is not a single entity, but a collection of distinct States or countries (some generations later, persisted in calling their home states “my country”) all united, as in, a collection of sovereign lands, all of which, include themselves by way of principle as part of a larger federated body, their solidarity and mutual interests thus implicitly inseparable, assuring that all are to be treated equally as any other. It is worth noting that the Iroquois’ political confederacy influenced this idea which was brought to the original Articles of Confederation. But it was deemed insufficient to the task of allowing a strong central government to constrain or control commerce, let alone the states themselves. Herein lays the realization that despite the individual nature of each state, the country as a whole would be singular in terms of its relationship with the larger world of disparate nations. The story of how the United States came to be “singular” versus “plural” does not end until after the conclusion of the American Civil War, perhaps that was the final test of American ingenuity for compromise and resolution.

Three:

The word “Order” in the phrase “in Order to form a more perfect Union” seems unusually selected. While contextually it is simply a preposition; its capitalization seems to imply another, more special, meaning. Perhaps it is an allusion to the ideal “order” as understood in the harmonic state of natural philosophy; maybe it was a nod to some other mutual understanding of the word. Of course it could be a direct hint that it is “We the people” whose purpose it is to be the architects of the government, and that this union is a function of our ‘ordering’ it as “we” see fit. I am open to speculation on the truth behind capitalizing this word.

Four:

“Union” as it appears in “… a more perfect Union,” reflects the practicality of the framers, as they were clearly indicating the goal of perfecting a sustainable union of states under an overarching federal authority. Their aim may have been to express that it is not the States’ whose mandate was erected to perfect the union, but the responsibility of the union itself. Of course, perfection is hardly an objective idea, and requires definition which is also part of the preamble. While some could say that the “union” capitalization might be a veiled reference to the imperfect sate of other “unions,” I suspect that such sentiments were probably outside the scope and intent of the framers of the constitution. Interestingly, late in James Madison’s life, in an unaddressed letter, he expressed the idea that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

Five:

One might think that of all the words, “Justice,” as in “… establish Justice,” would be fairly easy to understand. But what are we calling justice and what were they calling it? Upon which principle(s) was justice evoked for this constitution? The topic of justice is quite deep, especially as there seem to be many variations on the ideal; I will limit my comments to the more prevalent concepts which may have been more commonly held by the framers who were well aware of idea of then modern philosophers such as James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu. It appears likely that the principles of equality, fairness, and “no one is above the law,” played a great part in the foundation of the idea behind the “justice” our preamble sets as the first goal of the “more perfect union.” They relied on contemporary paradigms, such as those of the Magna Carta, English common law, as well as thinkers like John Locke. Foremost, what we consider “American” justice contrasted radically from the current reality elsewhere, where some were “more equal” by decree, with greater entitlements and protections, and fewer burdens. In his book “Common Sense,” Thomas Paine wrote that such a concept as royalty conflicts with natural law, and evidently the founding fathers agreed. “Justice” then, can be seen as central to the heart of the United States as a founding principle. It is within justice that equality and fairness find their foundation.

Six:

As the Constitution defined it in the preamble, the goal to “insure domestic Tranquility” seems fairly straight-forward. While the deliberations and debate over the crafting of the constitution was underway, George Mason, wrote to his son, "The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree. May God Grant that we may be able to gratify them, by establishing a wise and just Government." (Note the peculiar capitalization at work here as well… an accidental discovery on my part.) That anxiety, I suspect, was the point of the verbiage; to ensure the contract with the people included a promise that the government will not generate or perpetuate stress in its people, as a matter of principle – the government’s very existence was to actively keep such discomforts from the population.

This is not to diminish the historical truth that armed conflicts had arisen over matters of justice and taxation within the new nation; with State sovereignty at its peak during the days of the Articles of Confederation, the disparity of laws between states had given rise to quite a few difficulties.

For example, because Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation; and the depressed condition of business had led to many small farmers being thrown in jail for debt, with numerous farms being confiscated and sold for taxes. In 1786, some farmers fought back. Led by former Continental army captain Daniel Shays, a group of armed men, prevented the circuit court from sitting at Northampton, MA. They also threatened to seize muskets stored in the arsenal at Springfield. Although the insurrection was put down by state troops, the incident confirmed the fears of many wealthy men that anarchy might be just around the corner. It is clear that domestic tranquility was an issue of the day.

-Digression -

If you’ll pardon the brief digression, I note that one phrase is devoid of capitalization: “provide for the common defense.” The absence of capitalization may have some significance; but I can’t say that it is clear to me why it should be so. All nations are compelled to defend themselves, so perhaps it was simply too much of a common sense provision to merit special attention.

Seven:

The next preamble promise “…promote the general Welfare” embodies the idea that all efforts of the constitutionally-mandated government are for the mutual benefit of all citizens. We could bury ourselves under the mountain of perspectives which might encompass “welfare” as a concept. The point seems to me to be squarely focused on such welfare being common in nature. That welfare is a primary objective of governance, assures the citizens that no one agenda separate from the welfare of the people, will rule. There would be no way to offer pretense that the general welfare revolves around the prosperity or success of any single individual, organization, or external entity – were this promise adhered to. (This of course, was another incongruously stated goal as long as the institution of slavery remained intact.)

Eight:

“…and secure the Blessings of Liberty” seems a difficult phrase to reconcile. As is often noted, liberty, or freedom, as most refer to it nowadays, is not without its price. Liberty requires – more often than not – compromise, fairness, and a sense of equality. All of these are subject to personal perception. How a government can secure liberty of that nature seems problematic. This me to think that the intent of the statement may have been simply a way of stating the mandate that the government ensure that the citizens of the United States were never subjugated by others – that they were never forced to produce and labor for anyone’s benefit other than their own, or at least for those they choose. But what exactly are the “blessings” of liberty?

“Liberty” was defined by Thomas Hobbes, as “the absence of coercion, or interference with, agents' possible private actions, by an exterior social-body”; but that can be considered a ‘negative’ definition. It really only pertains to what is not affecting the person [agent] in question. Others take a positive view of liberty as necessary to actually define it in its own terms, not by what is excluded from liberty. This dialectic goes hand in hand with positive or negative rights (being permitted or obliged to do something, as opposed to being permitted or obliged not to do something.) I cannot decide for you what flavor the promise to ‘secure the blessings of liberty’ means… but I suspect the addition of social constructs like morality, ethics, and political or religious ideology muddle these waters quite extensively.

Of course our mostly well-educated authors of the Constitution were well-acquainted with the thinkers who molded modern western thought, like Aristotle, Russo, and Locke and I suspect they were inclined to take as ‘a given’ that liberty is self-evident to those who are – or have been – denied it; which means the promise itself speaks to different citizens differently, according to their experiences…

Nine:

The last point of this analysis falls within the qualifier “to ourselves and our Posterity” and therein lays the promise most frequently overlooked by the executors of governance. That the citizens should want to hear the promise articulated is to be expected. What’s best for them is obviously the whole point of establishing a “more perfect Union” as opposed to living as they had, which proved quite unsatisfactory on the whole. But the promise went beyond that. It evokes responsibility for foresight. Our posterity refers to that which we leave behind us as we abandon this life. Our children remain; their inherited works and assets, the nation itself remains; it cannot be an enterprise which exists to maximize extractions of wealth or power at the moment – it is meant to endure well, and just as much for the future as for the present.

Politics is an art of expedience. This implies the transient, the compromise between what you want, and what you have to sacrifice to achieve it - now. This promise about the obligation to posterity is the safeguard that was always meant to protect us from the power-seeker, the opportunist profiteer, and or those who would mortgage the future for immediate benefits today… including ourselves.

-----

I appreciate your patience in reading this exercise of mine. I hope you may tell me where I may have missed a point, misunderstood, or was just plain wrong. I hope we can agree more than disagree, but I know that in either case, you will teach me, as you always do.

MM