Hello, and welcome back to the Civic Flame. IÕm Dr. Vayo, your host, and this week weÕll be looking at the Preamble to the US Constitution. This episode is meant to introduce you to what the people who wrote the Constitution said it should do. But the preamble isnÕt really considered legal language. Or is it? Writing for the National Constitution Center, Micahel Stokes Paulson from University of St Thomas School of Law says, ÒThe PreambleÑor ÒEnacting ClauseÓÑof the Constitution is more than just a pitcherÕs long wind-up before delivering the pitch to home plate. It is the provision that declares the enactment of Òthis ConstitutionÓ by ÒWe the People of the United States.ÓÓ Sounds great, right? But what does it all mean? LetÕs talk it out. (transition music) For those of you who didnÕt have Ms. Serrill for 8th grade history or who didnÕt watch School House Rock, the Preamble to the Constitution is the beginning of it. It is before the start of Article 1 and outlines the purpose of the Constitution and what it is supposed to be. ÒWe 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.Ó One thing I love here is the phrase Òmore perfect union.Ó Why? Because it shows humility. The founders knew the nation and the Constitution was not perfect and would need to change to be maintained. Remember, a major reason the Articles of Confederation failed was because of how unamendable it was. They knew that to be maintained, this document would need to be flexible enough to change. But wait, thereÕs more. If youÕve ever wondered why we rely so much on the text of the Constitution when other countries have more flexible arrangement, some of that comes from the Preamble, too. The idea that Òthis ConstitutionÓ is meant to mean this specific document is basically how origianlists (people who believe the Constitution should be read as originally intended( and textualists (who read the Òplain meaning of the textÓ) justify their way of reading and understanding the Constitution. It is not the way I subscribe to in most cases, but when it comes to the structure and power of the government, I actually do. Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer writes several interesting books on why originalism doesnÕt hold up to scrutiny. The Late Justice Scalia writes a book that basically launched a legal movement to make originalism popular again. If youÕre interested in doing more reading, ScaliaÕs A Matter of Interpretation along with BreyerÕs Active Liberty or Reading the Constitution will get you started unpacking this controversy. As Justice OÕConnorÕs The Majesty of the Law, and you have yourself a whole college semester on these ideas. But weÕll get to them later (and probably have my friend Dr. Chris Bailey weigh in, since thatÕs her area). Why does all of this interpretation stuff matter? Because words matter. We donÕt know what the law is, says, or does, unless we know what the words are, say, or do. When a case comes before the courts, the judge have to apply what the words do to the case at hand. How they decide what those words mean matters very much. And, believe it or not, that can start as early in the Constitution as the Preamble (which is why weÕll be going section by section, and sometimes, even have to split sections up). The preamble is not the most fought about part of the Constitution. Largely because itÕs often ignored all together. Except for a huge part: We the People. This is the basis for what we call popular sovereignty (or peopleÕs sovereignty), itÕs also why I think the people hold all the power and the government is basically there for architecture. The We the People part was really meant to establish the kind of democracy discussed in the Declaration of Independence, and stress that this country was meant to be a democracy or a republic (thereÕs always someone who says Òwell ackshually, weÕre a republic not a democracy. Yeah, we get it, youÕre super pedantic. LetÕs just agree that the point here was a government of and by the people (democracy) which would be enated through voting for representatives to the state and national governments (republic).). Democracy is the broad stroke Òrule by the demos, the peopleÓ while the republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people. And the preamble sets this up right away. WhatÕs interesting about the Òwe the people of the United StatesÓ part is that that was the part used to say the South couldnÕt secede. And this has caused some fights over what we the people means. Does it men us, individual rights? Does it mean us the American people as a whole? Does it mean both? There arenÕt a lot of clear answers. Lincoln for sure took the Òof the United StatesÓ prt seriously enough to say you canÕt individually secede. Whatever else it means, it has set up our general tone that the government exists because of We the People and as they said in the Declaration of Independence government Òderives its just power from the consent of the government.Ó The Khan Academy has a free video on the Preamble thatÕs about 15 minutes, if you want to hear more about it. And as always, I recommend either on YouTube or PBS to check out PBS crash course government. Interestingly, some of the controversy weÕll talk about with Article III, the Supreme Court, is that they derive their ability to strike down legislature in the name of the Constitution because we the people (the Constituton) matter more than we the legislature. But the preamble is also supposed to be the lens through which we can further understand the governmentÕs power and the limitations on that power (back to interpretation, I guess). The list of things that the Preamble stipulates are the role of government, all tht proves for the common defense, promotes the generl welfare stuff, really go into the failure of King George the III. Remember, history is never history and in law history is always present. The Declaration of Independence held that the Colonist should be able to revolt because the King was derelict in his duties to protect the people, that he incited insurrection among the people, that he ignored laws, and so on. These things were still fresh in the minds of those drafting the Constitution, and became the foundation of the preamble. (transition) So, thatÕs the basic beginning. Next week, weÕre going to start talking about the longest part of the Constitution: Article 1: The legislative branch. WeÕll start by talking about Congress generally, and then go from there. Until then, when you come across a law or policy in daily life, think about the preamble and what part of it that law might be speaking to. And as always, keep on securing those blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity! Until next time, keep the civic flame burning bright.