Constitutional Convention Preamble[W:425]

AlbqOwl · Dec 2, 2014

sangha said:
Like the idea that the govt's only role in the economy is to regulate interstate commerce, the notion that govt's only responsibility is to protect rights may be popular on the American right, but it finds little support anywhere else.

Since provisions of this document will require majority support in order to be included, I suspect that those (on both the right and left) who want this document to implement their own version of govt are going to be disappointed.

I am amending my version to read

We the People of the United States, in order to promote a better society, establish equal protection and application of the law for everyone, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense and security of our nation, promote the prosperity, safety and health of its' citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I still say, Sangha, that your version of the Preamble suggests much more power given to a central government than I believe is healthy.

The Founders one goal with a Constitution was to give the people the power to establish the societies they wished to have and live the lives they wished to live. And they saw that as absolutely no business of the federal government.

It is a matter of choosing whether we believe the individual is free to be who and what he/she is, or whether a central government is given power to dictate that to the people. What we choose as a Preamble I believe will determine which of those concepts we support.

d0gbreath · Dec 2, 2014

sangha said:
Like the idea that the govt's only role in the economy is to regulate interstate commerce, the notion that govt's only responsibility is to protect rights may be popular on the American right, but it finds little support anywhere else.

Since provisions of this document will require majority support in order to be included, I suspect that those (on both the right and left) who want this document to implement their own version of govt are going to be disappointed.

I am amending my version to read

We the People of the United States, in order to promote a better society, establish equal protection and application of the law for everyone, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense and security of our nation, promote the prosperity, safety and health of its' citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Change "it's" to 'our' after safety and health and I pick yours as the top shelf preamble.

d0gbreath · Dec 2, 2014

d0gbreath said:
Change "it's" to 'our' after safety and health and I pick yours as the top shelf preamble.

Maybe after peace among too?

I did not mean to quote myself. Thought I was performing an edit. This advanced technology is too much for me.

Edit: (i hope) Vasuderatorrent's suggestion is very similar. I just don't like the use of the word "fairness". We all know that fairness is different to each group of people.

jet57 · Dec 2, 2014

As for a new preamble; here's my contribution:

We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish equal justice; insure and protect domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens, promote the arts and sciences and secure the blessings of our equal liberty and freedoms for all our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.

As for definitions, I think that is a good idea. The legal definitions will be very helpful. For instance, the difference between ensure and insure is very interesting, so I would advise folks to consult such a dictionary before they post a contribution.

You'll note that in my contribution, since "promote the general welfare" has been a point of contention, I have elaborated on that point to establish the clarity of the idea: promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens.

A little trouble I'm having with this thread is that it seems to be mixing ideas and suggesttions for where to start...

jet57 · Dec 2, 2014

d0gbreath said:
Change "it's" to 'our' after safety and health and I pick yours as the top shelf preamble.

Why change it's to ours? Are we not talking about a nation of citizens that is expected to last?

AlbqOwl · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
As for a new preamble; here's my contribution:

We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish equal justice; insure and protect domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens, promote the arts and sciences and secure the blessings of our equal liberty and freedoms for all our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.

As for definitions, I think that is a good idea. The legal definitions will be very helpful. For instance, the difference between ensure and insure is very interesting, so I would advise folks to consult such a dictionary before they post a contribution.

You'll note that in my contribution, since "promote the general welfare" has been a point of contention, I have elaborated on that point to establish the clarity of the idea: promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens.

A little trouble I'm having with this thread is that it seems to be mixing ideas and suggesttions for where to start...

I would not put the 'arts and sciences' in a Preamble because there is no way to do that uniformly and in a way all the people would endorse and it should not be a power given to a central government to choose what is 'art' and/or what is proper science.

sangha · Dec 2, 2014

d0gbreath said:
Maybe after peace among too?

I did not mean to quote myself. Thought I was performing an edit. This advanced technology is too much for me.

Edit: (i hope) Vasuderatorrent's suggestion is very similar. I just don't like the use of the word "fairness". We all know that fairness is different to each group of people.

I also think "fairness" is a bit too subjective and open to interpretation. I prefer to spell out the areas in which equal treatment is applicable.

And since it starts with "We the People of the United States" I agree that "our" is both grammatically and stylistically more appropriate:

We the People of the United States, in order to promote a better society, establish equal protection and application of the law for everyone, insure peace among our citizens, provide for the national defense and security of our nation, promote the prosperity, safety and health of our citizens, and secure liberty for ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

jet57 said:
Why change it's to ours? Are we not talking about a nation of citizens that is expected to last?

I see it as a stylistic change with no difference in meaning.

jet57 · Dec 2, 2014

sangha said:
I also think "fairness" is a bit too subjective and open to interpretation. I prefer to spell out the areas in which equal treatment is applicable.

And since it starts with "We the People of the United States" I agree that "our" is both grammatically and stylistically more appropriate:

I see it as a stylistic change with no difference in meaning.

"Ours" is possessive, "its" refers to a thing: our nation - its constitution - we live by its constitution.

jet57 · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I would not put the 'arts and sciences' in a Preamble because there is no way to do that uniformly and in a way all the people would endorse and it should not be a power given to a central government to choose what is 'art' and/or what is proper science.

Since ours is a nation of ideas; the sharing and protection of them, particularly their insurance as the vanguard of progress, including their notation as an ideal we live by makes them as important as liberty. As to what is art and science; what id God?

d0gbreath · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
"Ours" is possessive, "its" refers to a thing: our nation - its constitution - we live by its constitution.

Our Nation, our Constitution.

"It's" is not incorrect. I simply find it odd that things would belong to a piece of paper.

AlbqOwl · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
Since ours is a nation of ideas; the sharing and protection of them, particularly their insurance as the vanguard of progress, including their notation as an ideal we live by makes them as important as liberty. As to what is art and science; what id God?

I don't see what is God as an issue, but that is not a power that should be given to the federal government to dictate either. Certainly establishment and administration of an enforceable patent process should be a function of the federal government in the interest of promoting the general welfare. But your suggested Preamble suggests the federal government should be in the business of administering funding for the arts, etc. and I disagree that such should be a national function because there is no way to do it without prejudice and unfairness to some. The federal government could certainly help coordinate private initiatives and projects to accomplish the arts, etc., most especially that which will become the property of the people, but the federal government should not be taxing the people for that purpose or doing it hands on.

Only science that contributes to the general welfare; i.e. an FDA; or that provides for the common defense should be the prerogative of the federal government.

jet57 · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I don't see what is God as an issue, but that is not a power that should be given to the federal government to dictate either. Certainly establishment and administration of an enforceable patent process should be a function of the federal government in the interest of promoting the general welfare. But your suggested Preamble suggests the federal government should be in the business of administering funding for the arts, etc. and I disagree that such should be a national function because there is no way to do it without prejudice and unfairness to some. The federal government could certainly help coordinate private initiatives and projects to accomplish the arts, etc., most especially that which will become the property of the people, but the federal government should not be taxing the people for that purpose or doing it hands on.

Only science that contributes to the general welfare; i.e. an FDA; or that provides for the common defense should be the prerogative of the federal government.

God is an example of interpretation. Our current constitution does not define God. Your point was; what is art? Who will define it? Art is in the eye of the beholder. Thus we get one of Picasso's most revered periods: cubism. And today, the federal government IS in the business of funding arts and sciences.

Your point seems to be tax driven which purely a subjective perspective. Setting aside funding for the arts and sciences is leading the van on the subjects and not leaving to states: it says that the arts and sciences are paramount as national institutions of history and progress; for instance The Smithsonian Institute is a good example. 70% is funded by the federal government: ever been there? Should it not be there?

Nilly · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I think once we agree on a Preamble, we then design a government that will meet the principles set forth in that Preamble. It will be in that design that will determine what the form of government will be. We won't really know until we start hammering our values, perceptions, dreams, hopes, and morality into that design.

My suggestion for a Preamble:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

jet57 said:
As for a new preamble; here's my contribution:

We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish equal justice; insure and protect domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens, promote the arts and sciences and secure the blessings of our equal liberty and freedoms for all our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.

Disagree with these because they make too many presumptions about what the rest of the constitution will look like.

The wording of the preamble as it is written now should have little to no bearing on the decisions made while writing the actual body. I'm actually leaning to having the preamble created, or at least ratified, at the end of the process rather than the beginning... Maybe if we just had a broad vague 'internal' preamble to go by to start with, which will then be tweaked as the process goes on.

AlbqOwl · Dec 2, 2014

Nilly said:
Disagree with these because they make too many presumptions about what the rest of the constitution will look like.

The wording of the preamble as it is written now should have little to no bearing on the decisions made while writing the actual body. I'm actually leaning to having the preamble created, or at least ratified, at the end of the process rather than the beginning... Maybe if we just had a broad vague 'internal' preamble to go by to start with, which will then be tweaked as the process goes on.

You do suggest a good point. But it has been my experience in these things that if you don't know what it is you wish to accomplish in a group effort that will affect all, you won't accomplish much.

I would like for us to have some sort of 'mission statement' or "Preamble" in mind as we begin so we are all on the same page as to what we wish to accomplish. It very well may be that in the process of airing all points of view and hammering out the fine points, we will realize that we were short sighted or failed to include an important component, and it will be necessary to amend some article or clause already completed or adjust the 'mission statement' accordingly.

Nothing.....not the Preamble or any clause should be considered written in stone until the entire document is completed and voted on as a whole. I would think we would complete each section as well as possible and vote to tentatively accept it before moving on, but with the understanding that it could subsequently be amended due to extenuating circumstances.

jet57 · Dec 2, 2014

Nilly said:
Disagree with these because they make too many presumptions about what the rest of the constitution will look like.

The wording of the preamble as it is written now should have little to no bearing on the decisions made while writing the actual body. I'm actually leaning to having the preamble created, or at least ratified, at the end of the process rather than the beginning... Maybe if we just had a broad vague 'internal' preamble to go by to start with, which will then be tweaked as the process goes on.

Broad and vague is how we get problems and misinterpretation. Citing a few subjects; liberty, justice, for instance. Arts and sciences is about free thinking, therefore to denote it; ensuring the general welfare of all our citizens leaves no room for misinterpretation. Rather it opens a whole list of doors of what such assurance might be.

Nilly · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
You do suggest a good point. But it has been my experience in these things that if you don't know what it is you wish to accomplish in a group effort that will affect all, you won't accomplish much.

I would like for us to have some sort of 'mission statement' or "Preamble" in mind as we begin so we are all on the same page as to what we wish to accomplish. It very well may be that in the process of airing all points of view and hammering out the fine points, we will realize that we were short sighted or failed to include an important component, and it will be necessary to amend some article or clause already completed or adjust the 'mission statement' accordingly.

Nothing.....not the Preamble or any clause should be considered written in stone until the entire document is completed and voted on as a whole. I would think we would complete each section as well as possible and vote to tentatively accept it before moving on, but with the understanding that it could subsequently be amended due to extenuating circumstances.

I'm happy as long as the bolded part is adhered to. I just don't want to be debating on particular clause and the argument is put forth 'well the preamble says so and so'.

The preamble as written by most people here describes the role of government in society, hence why I now think that writing a comprehensive preamble is putting the cart before the horse (even though I'm guilty of suggesting we move on to it first). The role of government should be defined by the body of the constitution, the body should not be defined by the preamble.

Maybe we should have a mission statement as separate from the preamble. This mission statement will not make it onto the final document.

Nilly · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
Broad and vague is how we get problems and misinterpretation. Citing a few subjects; liberty, justice, for instance. Arts and sciences is about free thinking, therefore to denote it; ensuring the general welfare of all our citizens leaves no room for misinterpretation. Rather it opens a whole list of doors of what such assurance might be.

It should only be broad and vague now.

As we write more and more of the body, the role of government (as we decide it) - which is essentially what people are suggesting the preamble is - will become clearer and we can make it sharper.

There are obviously disagreements about the role of government. These disagreements should be resolved in small doses as we write the document. It's clear that we won't be able to come to a decision in this thread as to whether government should do x for society or not, the arguments are way too broad.

AlbqOwl · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
God is an example of interpretation. Our current constitution does not define God. Your point was; what is art? Who will define it? Art is in the eye of the beholder. Thus we get one of Picasso's most revered periods: cubism. And today, the federal government IS in the business of funding arts and sciences.

Your point seems to be tax driven which purely a subjective perspective. Setting aside funding for the arts and sciences is leading the van on the subjects and not leaving to states: it says that the arts and sciences are paramount as national institutions of history and progress; for instance The Smithsonian Institute is a good example. 70% is funded by the federal government: ever been there? Should it not be there?

What the U.S. government should or should not do re taxes, arts, sciences, the Smithsonian, et al will almost certainly be addressed in the debates as we come to that. Such should not be part of the mission statement or Preamble, however, as the concepts in the Preamble should embrace all that the government will be without any preconceived notions about what it will and will not include except in the broadest sense.

sangha · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
"Ours" is possessive, "its" refers to a thing: our nation - its constitution - we live by its constitution.

Yes, "ours" and "its" are different words with different meaning, but in this context "our nations citizens" and "it's (the nations) citizens" work out to be the same thing.

IOW, the sentence starts with "We the People of the United States" so the "our" refers to "We the People of the United States"

AlbqOwl · Dec 2, 2014

To elaborate on the former, can we all agree that a function of federal government is to promote justice impartially and without prejudice for all? The nuts and bolts of how that will be accomplished will be what will be discussed/debated.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to promote the general welfare impartially and without prejudice or favoritism? The nuts and bolts of what that will look like will be discussed/debated. (And we will have opportunity to clarify the points of confusion that have existed in the current Constitution and correct those.)

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to ensure that the various states can function as one cohesive nation which means the states must not be allowed to do economic or physical violence to each other? How that is accomplished will be debated.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people? What powers and limitations will accomplish that will be hammered out point by point.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to provide the common defense? What constitutes the common defense and what powers are given to government to accomplish that will be debated.

But the general purpose of the Constitution to accomplish all that is included in the Preamble.

US Conservative · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I am assuming that states are needed going in because we already have states. And in my opinion, having and recognizing sovereign states that voluntarily join a union of states is the way to do away with kings, dictators, and other forms of totalitarian government. It also provides a more efficient and effective way for the people to form the kinds of societies they wish to have and live the lives they wish to live. As long as the Constitution puts the power with the people and does not exceed the authority given to the states, each state will be a little laboratory of trial and error until it arrives at a comfort level for its citizens. This is something that the federal government should not be involved in. The federal government is involved only to do what the states cannot do as states, such as provide the common defense, and to ensure that states do not do economic or material violence to each other which means regulating shared air space, water, access, etc.

I agree fully. We should clearly established that the federal govt is NOT there as a more powerful (or potentially so) force within govt. This would hopefully help limit what we have today, a near continuous power struggle with the states on the losing end. Even if statists dislike this.

US Conservative · Dec 2, 2014

jet57 said:
As for a new preamble; here's my contribution:

We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish equal justice; insure and protect domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens, promote the arts and sciences and secure the blessings of our equal liberty and freedoms for all our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.

As for definitions, I think that is a good idea. The legal definitions will be very helpful. For instance, the difference between ensure and insure is very interesting, so I would advise folks to consult such a dictionary before they post a contribution.

You'll note that in my contribution, since "promote the general welfare" has been a point of contention, I have elaborated on that point to establish the clarity of the idea: promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens.

A little trouble I'm having with this thread is that it seems to be mixing ideas and suggesttions for where to start...

I appreciate that but this is still quite amorphous and opens the door for the govt to step into everything. I'd like to see the welfare state ruled out in the preamble, so there aren't generations of Americans citing it as evidence that the govt need take care of them.

Also, though I am anything but against the arts and sciences I dont know that it belongs in the preamble.

US Conservative · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
To elaborate on the former, can we all agree that a function of federal government is to promote justice impartially and without prejudice for all? The nuts and bolts of how that will be accomplished will be what will be discussed/debated.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to promote the general welfare impartially and without prejudice or favoritism? The nuts and bolts of what that will look like will be discussed/debated. (And we will have opportunity to clarify the points of confusion that have existed in the current Constitution and correct those.)

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to ensure that the various states can function as one cohesive nation which means the states must not be allowed to do economic or physical violence to each other? How that is accomplished will be debated.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people? What powers and limitations will accomplish that will be hammered out point by point.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to provide the common defense? What constitutes the common defense and what powers are given to government to accomplish that will be debated.

But the general purpose of the Constitution to accomplish all that is included in the Preamble.

Yes I agree.

Nilly · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
To elaborate on the former, can we all agree that a function of federal government is to promote justice impartially and without prejudice for all? The nuts and bolts of how that will be accomplished will be what will be discussed/debated.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to promote the general welfare impartially and without prejudice or favoritism? The nuts and bolts of what that will look like will be discussed/debated. (And we will have opportunity to clarify the points of confusion that have existed in the current Constitution and correct those.)

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to ensure that the various states can function as one cohesive nation which means the states must not be allowed to do economic or physical violence to each other? How that is accomplished will be debated.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people? What powers and limitations will accomplish that will be hammered out point by point.

Can we all agree that a function of the federal government is to provide the common defense? What constitutes the common defense and what powers are given to government to accomplish that will be debated.

But the general purpose of the Constitution to accomplish all that is included in the Preamble.

I agree in general, but don't think it's necessarily limited to what you have said (in that sense I'm glad you phrased them as 'a function'). I also take an issue with unalienable rights but that's an argument for another day

PirateMk1 · Dec 2, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
The only reason I would resist putting sovereign in the Preamble is to not encourage anarchy which some will no doubt shoot for. I will be recommending that the Constitution itself include a clause that specifies that the government receives its powers from the people and not the other way around.

I am game with that.

Constitutional Convention Preamble[W:425]

AlbqOwl

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat

jet57

jet57

AlbqOwl

sangha

jet57

jet57

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat

AlbqOwl

jet57

Nilly

stb

AlbqOwl

jet57

Nilly

stb

Nilly

stb

AlbqOwl

sangha

AlbqOwl

US Conservative

US Conservative

US Conservative

Nilly

stb

PirateMk1

Constitutional Convention Preamble[W:425]

Yellow Dog Democrat

Yellow Dog Democrat

Yellow Dog Democrat

stb

stb

stb

stb

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency