Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...and wannabe geeks...

Let's discuss the U.S. Constitution's Preamble.

"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."

...

Does any of the above need to be codified or interpreted (judicial activism), or can we take it for face value (strict constructionist)?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

[almaty 19]

well, it was written for the white gentry male of the times..did not apply to blacks..indians or women....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

well, it was written for the white gentry male of the times..did not apply to blacks..indians or women....

...or gheys.

[John & Nan 0]

"more perfect" is bad English hahaha !!!

[Otto 83]

fast-forward to the part(s) where it is changed (or 'amended')....

[almaty 19]

well, it was written for the white gentry male of the times..did not apply to blacks..indians or women....

...or gheys.

especially mutli-cultural (mix of black-indian) ghey women

[one...two...tree 2,762]

provide for the common defense...

......

Any arguments here over what that part means?

[scandal 951]

...and wannabe geeks...

Let's discuss the U.S. Constitution's Preamble.

"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."

...

Does any of the above need to be codified or interpreted (judicial activism), or can we take it for face value (strict constructionist)?

Steve, if you do a Google search on "General Welfare clause" you'll get more than 10million hits.

I don't know what you mean by "codified"? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, by definition it is "code".

I think the distinction between so called activists and strict constructionists is trumped up a lot in the media, but is a false one. It's been the history of the courts to interpret the Constitution over time with respect to prevailing social conditions. That was the intent of the framers. America used to be a largely rural, agrarian society with legal slavery and no suffrage for women. Obviously it is a different society today. The power of the Constitution is that it is general and broad enough to be applicable throughout so much social change. It is due to its intrinsic structure, and the ability of the courts in its interpretation over time, that this has been so.

Regarding "General Welfare" the relevant section is not from the Preamble but from the Taxing and Spending clause, Article I Section viii. It is one of the most debated clauses of the US Constitution.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Sp..._Welfare_Clause

Of all the limitations upon the power to tax and spend, the General Welfare clause appears to have achieved notoriety as the most contentious. The dispute over the clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restiction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the Federalist Papers essays set forth two separate, conflicting theories:

* the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax;[15][16] and

* the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[17]

[Danno 1,228]

I know where this is going.... and it's not to point out the Lefts military cuts.

Continue

[SirJon 0]

I reclaim the American colonies back in the name of the Empire.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks, Ron.

I was hoping for a self professed constitutional geek to show up and set the record straight. Maybe they're out for coffee?

I reclaim the American colonies back in the name of the Empire.

That tickles my revolutionary blood cells.

[scandal 951]

Thanks, Ron.

I was hoping for a self professed constitutional geek to show up and set the record straight. Maybe they're out for coffee?

As soon as she shows up (yes I know who you mean...) I'm outta here. I will not respond to her.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I know where this is going.... and it's not to point out the Lefts military cuts.

Continue

Riiight....when Bush cut troops pay and benefits he just caught the liberal flu. Thank God it left his Right Wing intact.