by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Law of Identity is one of Aristotle’s fundamental Laws of Thought. It is expressed often in the terms of A=A or in other philosophical works as some variation of Marcus Aurelius’ admonishment to “ask of each and every thing what is it in itself”. This is less commentary than informal unscientific survey, but some of your answers will likely inform a future commentary. These questions kept hovering about as I considered the topic of the social compact. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the nature of the social compact model of government and that had been my intended topic for this weekend. However, as I thought about it and reviewed some older threads here where the subject had come up in preparation for addressing the subject, another area of confusion stood out as prevalent as well. That confusion centers around the proper role of government in society, specifically the proper role of government as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
If we look at the Constitution itself, the Preamble contains a basic description of the function of our Federal government.
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, 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.”
It is important to note that the Preamble is not law in the traditional sense. It neither grants powers nor restricts action. It simply provides context for the purpose of the form of government as established in the following articles and amendments. It is a statement of our aspirational goals of government.
Let’s break down the Preamble to provide some context for the question that follows.
“We the People of the United States” we’ll take to be all natural born or naturalized individual citizens of the United States. Just people. We won’t address the the twisted logic of attempting to turn the legal fiction of the corporation into real people. If you weren’t born, don’t have a metabolism, aren’t made of meat and won’t die, we won’t consider you a person for the purposes of this discussion.
“[I]n Order to form a more perfect Union” we can consider both as a statement of quality and an aspiration considering the Founders included a process for Constitutional amendment in Article V. They knew that society and consequently societies definition of perfection would change over time and designed the Constitution to serve the citizens by being flexible enough to adapt to those changing definitions and needs.
“[E]stablish Justice”, not just through the creation of the Supreme Court and lower courts, but to pursue that ever elusive perfected justice where all wrong doers are held accountable for their bad actions and all victims are made as whole again as practically possible.
“[I]nsure domestic Tranquility” which entails more than just keeping the peace. This idea is intimately related to both the preceding the notion of establishing justice as a society with just laws and just courts is a society less likely to suffer social discord from people opting for “self-help justice”, but also to the subsequent notions as well. Providing for the common defense relates to domestic tranquility as a society that shares in protection from outside aggressors is less likely to be disrupted by invasion. Promoting the general welfare relates to domestic tranquility as a society that both tends to the commons as well as protects and aids its weakest members is less likely to suffer internally generated domestic social discord. Securing “the Blessings of Liberty” relates to domestic tranquility as a society that maximizes liberty will also face less discontent from the citizenry.
Consider that in many ways, mostly rooted in the corruption of the electoral and legislative processes by monied interests and their undue influence and the danger of the ever expanding unitary executive, our government has and is perpetually failing in their Constitutionally defined mission. We see regularly stories of injustice. We see regularly stories of not common defense, but wars of aggression and the erosion of our civil rights. We see regularly where the general welfare is sacrificed for the personal and corporate profits of the few. We see regularly stories where those in positions of power want us to sacrifice liberty in the name of security from a nebulous and overblown threat in a way that seems to be less about protecting citizens and our rights and more about their consolidation of personal political power and ability to stifle dissent and/or opposition.
Some Western countries penalize corporations for off shoring jobs. Some Western countries are not afraid to put bad acting previous pols on trail and/or in prison for their crimes. Some provide for post-secondary education either for free or minimal cost to their citizens. A great many provide universal health care as a basic human right.
The questions are simple although the answers may be complex.
NOTE: Any suggestions based on either Ayn Rand or the Austrian School of Economics will be laughed at and probably ridiculed as simply apologetics for the venal and sociopathic.
What do you think is the proper function of the U.S. government in itself given the context stated in the Preamble?
What do you think our government should be doing to achieve the goals stated in the Preamble that it isn’t doing right now?
What do you think our government should stop doing to achieve the goals stated in the Preamble?
~ submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger.
” If you go broke providing for food, shelter, health care, etc. how is that in the best interest of all of the people?”
This is not the only future possible. You have to just, you know, want to find alternatives.There is more that sufficient wealth and resources available to accomplish these goals without anyone losing anything of actual substance, given a financing plan, a problem of much less complexity than, say, a mission to Mars.
One word will need to be learned for it to work, however, something which comes with the discovery that the surface area of a sphere is indeed finite: “enough”. Wisdom seems to suggest any happiness pursuit plan contain this notion.
It also appears natural, then, for True Conservatives to have plowed trillions into space exploration, as there is no bigger known venue for freedom.
Instead, we got a rock. Into it are etched many words. One is “torture,” which is written so large you really cannot make out most of the others, though “arms dealing” is also clearly visible. Oh! In small print: “indefinite detention.” So small you may have missed until it was far too late.
I have to laugh at LC a fellow Texan since he has not done as he says others should do. The Constitution already has the provision that Congress cannot vote itself a raise.It can only take effect until after an election. It is even funnier when Texas and presumably this writer voted for our Guv for Life Perry in the last election. Texas GOP has fought against voting rights for the elderly, poor, blacks, Latinos, etc.. and made sure that the redistricting would NOT reflect the population of Texas. DeLay complained that the reason for doing an out of ten year sequence was that too many Democrats had been elected and did not reflect the voting strength of the GOP. Yet they made damn sure that the GOP has an unfair and even illegal proportion now.
Then to top it off, the Texas GOP has made sure that NO E-Verify law would even get out of committee in the legislature, much less get passed. The GOP wants MORE illegals coming into our country, but they want them to stay illegals so that they can exploit them better. In fact, Robert Perry, the luxury homebuilder has most of his workforce composed of ILLEGALS and made damn sure no Texas law will interfere with that cozy relationship. He is one of the biggest donors to the GOP in Texas and nationwide.
I’m sorry, I did not realize that I specified “Congress” when referring to voting themselves raises. Presumption is the same as, bearing false witness. So who did I say I voted for?
You ask what the government should be doing? Protecting the united States of America from tyranny and enforcing the foundation principles. All public employees should be required to read the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Constitution, Federalist Papers and all documents produced by the founders to be able to hold office of the people. Public employees held to their Oath which is a contract with the people. Term limits on all public employees. Schools run by the states because they know the needs of the people. Public employees should not be allowed to belong to a union when they are being paid by the taxpayers. Public employees denied voting themselves raises, awards and pensions on the publics dime. I could go on and on but nobody seems to like to read, especially public employees!
I would agree with Bron’s statement that our constitution should be interpreted based upon life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
i will point out that we had two Revolutions whereby the first culminated in the orginal Constitution and the First Ten Amendments or Bil of Rights. The Second Revolution came with and after the Civil War and the three Amendments of Reconstruction: 13th Freed the Slaves; 14th made all persons equal, not just the Freedman but the poor white trash who had been under the thumb of the oligarchy and the notions of Lord and Lassie; the 15th Amendment which conferred voting rights on the Freemen. Each Amendment has a provision that Congress can pass legislation to implement the provisions. It was Lyndon Johnson who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those statutes completed that which was left undone when Reconstruction went South after Grant left office. The low point was Woodrow Wilson who re segregated Washington DC, government, and particularly in the military. Truman did some Executive Orders, integrated the armed forces, and later the 1957 Civil Rights Act was a step. But Lyndon Johnson was The Man. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows us all to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
A good book on topic is Garrett Epps, Democracy Reborn.
Google also: Loewen, Sundown Towns and also The Second American Revolution.
Love the post Gene.
Which is so far from reality as to border on wishful thinking, it terms of it becoming reality.
Which is, again, so far from reality as to border on wishful thinking, it terms of it becoming reality.
Which is, finally, so far from reality as to border on wishful thinking, it terms of it becoming reality.
The original idea and structure were some of the most wonderful advancements in the direction away from tyranny, considering the reality at the time the attempt was begun, ever attempted.
Something more powerful than the best desires and intents of the American people intervened over the years to thwart our attaining the high ground the founders could then see, but could not at that time attain.
Gene H:
we have both.
In any event the government has overstepped its original charter.
And while the Declaration informs the Constitution and the spirit of the law and our social compact, it is not the law nor did the Framers use Locke’s prescription, Bron.
You can play with the cards as dealt, leave or call for revolution but neither Locke nor the Declaration state the function of government as defined in the Preamble. That they didn’t is relevant to the future discussion of the social compact in context. The Founders saw mutual benefit in the way they framed the mission of government in employing an “expanded” Lockean perspective.
Also, I disagree with your last sentence. We have a corporatists fascist state transforming into an authoritarian police state, but nanny has squat to do with it. Those in government no longer care for anyone but themselves and their corporate paymasters. They certainly aren’t interested in caring for the needs of the citizens as is implied by the use of the word “nanny”.
randyjet:
Slavery was a terrible compromise.
What is the General Welfare? It can be everything and then it is nothing. If you go broke providing for food, shelter, health care, etc. how is that in the best interest of all of the people?
Jefferson used Locke’s concepts in the Declaration. Why would you want to free yourself from one set of chains to put on another set?
The Constitution should be interpreted based on the concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
We have a paternalistic nanny state.
Bron the only problem is that government defines what is legitimate and illegitimate property. That changes over time and circumstances. Slaves at the time were considered property in some states. Drugs and alcohol were considered rightful property and were freely available. Having a wagon is legitimate only if there are enough wagons to transport the Army, if not, the wagon is taken by the Army. It is not so simple and the defining methods of the role of government has to be found in the preamble to promote the general welfare. In fact, Tom Paine among others thought that universal health care was a right, which at the time was not a good idea, since the doctors were more likely to kill you than cure you. The first Congresses found that establishing government owned and operated hospitals for sailors was a means of promoting the general welfare. So there are many other things that go along those same lines that government can and must do, and NOT be contrary to our founders.
Bron,
And the jurisprudence on that language would back you up. The problem with literalism and/or originalism in interpreting the Constitution is in the areas where language is not clear cut or matters are not plainly settled. Areas like the 13th? Not so much. Very little wiggle room in that language. In contrast, the N&P Clause is a Pandora’s box.
OS,
Yep. And I can barely imagine a world without nuance or abstraction. Such a world may be simpler, but the comfort of simplicity does not come close to the value of a complex but more accurate truth or the utility of abstraction. Some think ignorance is bliss, but bliss at what cost? The world is literally fractal in complexity, but that is nothing to fear. In fact, I find it wondrous.
**************
Bron,
Locke didn’t write the Preamble, Bron. He wasn’t even party to the Convention although his writings did indeed influence the Founders. However, the Founders did cover those three areas as well as others in stating the function of our government. If they had wanted to use Locke’s shorter prescription, they could have, but they didn’t.
OS:
“It is no wonder so many take the Constitution literally,. . .”
Amendment 13:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I take that literally. No other way to take it.
Locke had 3 reasons for government: protection of life, protection of liberty and protection of property. That was pretty much it. Just the protection of those 3 things.
We are so far from those notions that our government has become an overseer rather than a protector of our rights.
It should be doing much, much less than it is.
OS,
you are right about the separation of church and state comment yesterday. I guess if the bible is taken literally, maybe the constitution does not include any court decision that interpret it.
Gene,
Over the years, I have never ceased to be amazed at how supposedly bright people can do neither nuance or abstraction. I have no idea how many mental status examinations I have given over the years. Part of an MSE is to ask a few proverbs. I ask several, ranging from very easy to very hard. One of the easiest is, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” When asked to explain that in everyday words, you would be surprised by the number of people with advanced college degrees who answer, “You have to read it first.”
It is no wonder so many take the Constitution literally, like the guy from Mississippi yesterday who said that since the Constitutions doesn’t specifically say “separation of church and state,” it is not the law.
Excellent discussion Gene. The US government’s role is to provide for the well being and safety of its people. That doesn’t just mean a strong defense. It also means that jobs and universal health care and a clean environment together with an excellent school system are an essential aspect of our government. This should all be done while protecting our constitutional guarantees.
RWL, why hasn’t the fact that neither W nor Cheney can travel to Vermont, a United State last time I checked, for fear of arrest on suspicion of war crimes attracted the attention and courage of so much as ONE U.S. attorney as to why that may be?
This is something that exists in the present and at home. Armenian genocide? Not so much.
Any U.S. Attorneys reading this, you have a LOT of explaining do so…. nor is this subject just going to “go away.” The order to torture was given. Everything that has followed is a mixture of hollow and false. In 2013, only cowardice causes your continued inaction.
Off topic question:
Why doesn’t our federal government (but 40 states in the US do) recognize the Armenian Genocide?
Non-relevant gibberish . . . expected.
Preemptive ridicule…lovely!