Preamble to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can request an edit, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or .
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII · VIII · IX · X
Subsequent Amendments
XI · XII · XIII · XIV · XV
XVI · XVII · XVIII · XIX · XX
XXI · XXII · XXIII · XXIV · XXV
XXVI · XXVII
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).
Text
“ 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,[1] 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. ”Meaning and application
The Preamble serves solely as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government,[2] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever utilized it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[3] except as regards frivolous litigation.[4]
Judicial relevance
The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution's meaning.[5] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[6] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques which focus on the exact text of a document[7] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, so the Preamble provides additional language against which to compare other parts of the Constitution. Balanced against these techniques are those that focus more attention on broader efforts to discern the meaning of the document from more than just the wording;[8] the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the "spirit" of the Constitution.
Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are very often interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it;[9] as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders.[10] Although revolutionary in some ways, the Constitution maintained many common law concepts (such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and sovereign immunity),[11] and courts deem that the Founders' perceptions of the legal system that the Constitution created (i.e., the interaction between what it changed and what it kept from the British legal system[12]) are uniquely important because of the authority "the People" invested them with to create it.[13] Along with evidence of the understandings of the men who debated and drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, the courts are also interested in the way that government officials have put into practice the Constitution's provisions, particularly early government officials,[14] although the courts reserve to themselves the final authority to determine the Constitution's meaning.[15] However, this focus on historical understandings of the Constitution is sometimes in tension with the changed circumstances of modern society from the late 18th century society that drafted the Constitution; courts have ruled that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of these changed circumstances.[16] All of these considerations of the political theory behind the Constitution have prompted the Supreme Court to articulate a variety of special rules of construction and principles for interpreting it.[17] For example, the Court's rendering of the purposes behind the Constitution have led it to express a preference for broad interpretations of individual freedoms.[18]
Examples
An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids.[19] Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers".[20] "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[21]
On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution. United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.[22] is an example of this. In that case, the defendants were a car manufacturer and dealership indicted for a criminal violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The Congress passed the statute in order to cope with the Great Depression, and one of its provisions purported to give to the President authority to fix "the prices at which new cars may be sold".[23] The dealership, located in Oklahoma City, had sold an automobile to a customer (also from Oklahoma City) for less than the price for new cars fixed pursuant to NIRA. Substantively, the case was about whether the transaction in question constituted "interstate commerce" that Congress could regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[24] Although the government argued that the scope of the Commerce Clause included this transaction, it also argued that the Preamble's statement that the Constitution was created to "promote the general Welfare" should be understood to permit Congress to regulate transactions such as the one in this case, particularly in the face of an obvious national emergency like the Great Depression. The court, however, dismissed this argument as erroneous[25] and insisted that the only relevant issue was whether the transaction that prompted the indictment actually constituted "interstate commerce" under the Supreme Court's precedents that interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause.[26]
Interpretation
Aspects of national sovereignty
The Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" has required interpretation over the years to determine exactly what the nature is of the governmental entity that the Constitution creates. In contemporary international law, the world consists of sovereign states. A government is said to be "sovereign" if it is the supreme lawmaking authority in a particular place; the concept is distinct from "ownership."[27] The Supreme Court has made it clear that the "United States of America" consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations.[28] Although the Constitution expressly gives to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments (such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to the federal government as the country's representative in the international community.[29]
Domestically, the federal government's sovereignty means that it may perform acts such as entering into contracts or accepting bonds, which are typical of governmental entities but not expressly provided for in the Constitution or laws.[30] Similarly, the federal government, as an attribute of sovereignty, has the power to enforce those powers that are granted to it (e.g., the power to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads"[31] includes the power to punish those who interfere with the postal system so established).[32] The Court has recognized the federal government's supreme power[33] over those limited matters[34] entrusted to it. Thus, no state may interfere with the federal government's operations as though its sovereignty is superior to the federal government's (discussed more below); for example, states may not interfere with the federal government's near absolute discretion to sell its own real property, even when that real property is located in one or another state.[35] The federal government exercises its supreme power not as a unitary entity, but instead via the three coordinate branches of the government (legislative, executive, and judicial),[36] each of which has its own prescribed powers and limitations under the Constitution.[37] In addition, the doctrine of separation of powers functions as a limitation on each branch of the federal government's exercise of sovereign power.[38]