Ray Bradbury said, ""

Mediate Inferences of the Preamble

My phone got turned off, so I spent the last two days reading outside.

I posted the first part of what will be a thorough series of posts on the Constitution.

Previous posts:

1. Immediate Inferences of the Preamble and Definitions
   
2. On my interpretation.

The Preamble sets forth the outline of our government: impartial administration of isonomic law, established and operated on the authority of the people, toward the protection of individual rights, by a national government acting in cooperation with various state governments.

Liberty, justice, union, the general welfare, a common defence, and domestic tranquility, could not prevail if the state governments operated on a different basis than the national government ( e.g. if one state had a monarchical government, if one state warred against another, etc). Justice would not exist if at any level there existed laws administered to target specific individuals or groups. The state governments are therefore to be directed toward the same purpose, and in the same manner, as the national government: each level of government must be limited to the administration of isonomic laws. As inferred above, each level of government must also be limited to laws created through popular bodies. Liberty would not exist if at any level of government there existed laws which forcibly prevented individuals from acting so long as they did not infringe the rights of others: liberty requires laws which are bounded by equal freedom. The Constitution must therefore possess the power to regulate the state governments to conform to the outline of isonomic and impartial administration of law by civil government toward the protection of individual rights.

The Constitution limits each level of government to the administration of isonomic laws derived from popular consent, bounded by the individual rights of each. Only those laws which conform to isonomy, popular sovereignty, and equal freedom, are compatible with the Constitution and valid.

A digression. I have inferred above that the Constitution limits all laws, state and federal, to those which conform to isonomy, popular sovereignty, and equal freedom. Thus, no law directed toward a specific individual or group, or created outside of civil means, or which infringes the equal rights of peaceful citizens, is valid. Article VI, clause 2, establishes the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land."  No law is valid which does not conform to these limits. The Constitution thus prohibits laws passed by unelected bodies, laws which, even if created through popular bodies, target specific individuals or groups, and laws which infringe on the equal freedom of individuals. The Constitution therefore cannot be embedded within a supranational government that does not itself conform to isonomy, popular sovereignty, and equal freedom.

Notice that the structure of government I have inferred from those scant 52 words is one which has not existed. Within the Constitution itself, there existed law targeted toward one group, and from the moment the Constitution was ratified the government enforced as property rights the exchange of that which admits of only one owner: a human being. Innumerable laws on all levels of government accumulated which do not conform to isonomy, infringe on peaceful action, and which are given new meanings by unelected bodies. Yet, as I inferred, the form of government mandated by the Constitution is never perfect, yet always perfectible. Within these 52 words lays an outline for government which, even if grasped vaguely, will lead those transgressions of justice and liberty to be corrected. The Preamble is the filter through which the Constitution is to be seen. Even if it fails to sieve out all the chaff, it provides the means whereby the chaff can be seen as such. Each individual and generation has an opportunity, not to re-interpret the Constitution, but to check each power government has gained against the limits given it in the Preamble.

This is my judgment, my own interpretation. If you believe I erred, drop a comment. Read the definitions I posted, so you don't end up whining that "liberty," means "power to do something," or "freedom from want," or something other than the absence of coercion. I'll post some more on the Preamble if I get some good comments, before going onto the Constitution proper.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at May 26, 2005 15:59 EST | Permalink | comments |
constitutionalism, pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.