Tag: politics

The final clause outlining the intended purpose of the Constitution (and the government it envisions) begins with the conjunction ”and”; writing, ”and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The Preamble itself has no legally binding powers. It is sometimes referred to as ”the Enactment clause” as that statement of purpose for all that follows thereafter. But, as an introduction, it has no equal. 

The framers began the Preamble (serving as an Introduction/Summary) with the famous words ”We the People”, thereby declaring for all history that this is to be a Constitutional government created of the People. 

They are meeting, acting, and writing, as Representatives of the People. They are doing so freely, not of compulsion, nor asking permission of anyone but themselves and their constituents to draft a Constitution to form a new Government. They know that a process of ratification will need to be carried out and approved by the People to see their labors come to fruition. Anticipating approval, they set forth in this last clause what the expectation of those fruits should be for the People.

The reader of the Preamble finds the following verbs in the infinitive case, form, establish, insure, provide, promote: each with a specific direct object in mind. These have been discussed at length in the previous essays put forth in this series. Each of the first five clauses describe the creation by the Constitution, of ideas, institutions, and relationships not then in existence. We have seen how they build upon one another. 

The final clause is not creative in the same sense, but rather speaks of the ability of the Constitution to secure the blessings that are the expected outflow of the type and manner of government the Constitution will ordain and enact. The framers foresee a nation operating under the mandates they’ve drafted as one that will preserve liberty, deriving its just powers from the governed. 

Thus, the Constitution, by adoption of its various Articles and provisions, forms a Union, establishes Justice, insures domestic tranquility, provides for common defense, promotes general welfare and is meant by the effective and ongoing function of these, to also secure the blessings which will naturally follow.

It is interesting that the framers did not write, ”and secure the Wages of Liberty”. Instead, they chose the word ”Blessings” as that goodness accorded to the recipient by one having the power to “Bless”. A blessing is not based upon either contractual obligation or merit, but as the bestowal of a gift. 

The framers are careful to name no particular creed or religion or doctrine. But no one can seriously deny their implied belief that People created free and equal, joined in the brotherhood of common purpose, treated justly (and treating one another justly without regard to rank or station), enjoying peace in their homes and persons, protected, provided for, and acting in liberty towards their fellow equally free citizens would not be a people blessed by their Creator.

It is well that We the People should routinely revisit these beginnings, that we might re-dedicate ourselves to the Ends.

There is nothing radical about Government acting for the Public Good

The fifth stated purpose of Government of the United States as listed by the framers of the Constitution is ”to Promote the General Welfare”.

There is much debate over the meaning and scope of this clause. It is ambiguous, and frustratingly ”open-ended”. The historic debate has centered on whether or not its inclusion here in the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8 is declaratory of any specific desired outcome. Providing a common defense, for example, is much easier to define and quantify, than to promote something as seemingly vague as the General Welfare. The conservative view has been that this phrase is simply re-stating the power of Government to enact Means for general purposes, by way of laying and collecting tax revenues, and that it isn’t about any socially advantageous Ends.

James Madison, in several of the Federalist papers, and in arguments before the Virginia Legislature seeking to secure their ratification of the Constitution, argued for the more limited view of the phrase. He wanted to allay any concerns that the inclusion of the phrase ”general Welfare” might imply unlimited Federal powers to enact whatever the government might deem to be ”good”.

Jefferson held virtually the same view. He argued that a broad interpretation would grant to Congress power so vast as to be ”indefinable”. He felt the foundational ground of the Constitution was its design to reserve to either the States or the People those powers not specifically enumerated in the document.

Jefferson’s position is what we today refer to as a ”strict constructionist” view. Its proponents prefer to limit the actions of government to specific, enumerated, finite powers. In practice however, Jefferson, Madison, and most all strict constructionists, act quite differently than they profess to believe.

It is interesting and instructive, that though this was undoubtedly Jefferson’s theoretical belief, when, as President, he was presented with the opportunity to more than double the land area of the United States by the Louisiana Purchase, he did so at the cost of $15 million tax-payer dollars in the ”general interest”. This was without a doubt the greatest real-estate bargain in history. The cost per square mile ending up being only around $18.

This 1803 purchase, made in negotiations with Napoleon, was rooted firmly in the gray area of the General Welfare clause. It also had some negative consequences. It angered the Federalists, notably Alexander Hamilton. It created a strain on relations with Great Britain and with Spain. It was undertaken without the prior knowledge or approval of Congress.  It posed problems of citizenship regarding the annexation of non-English speaking creole inhabitants of Louisiana and New Orleans. Jefferson annexed them and made them citizens anyway, because non-citizens could not be lawfully taxed, and he wanted the tax revenues. The total cost ended up closer to $2.6 billion dollars by the time all of the treaties with the Native American tribes then inhabiting the purchased lands were finalized. Notwithstanding, the overall impact of Jefferson’s decision was clearly in the public interest.

There is a large historical record revealing Jefferson’s anguish over whether such a treaty and purchase was even constitutional. He even went so far as the consideration of a Constitutional amendment to justify the acquisition. But, finally convinced by arguments from his supposedly strict-constructionist friend Madison, and other members of his cabinet, notably his Secretary of Treasury, Albert Gallatin, he rationalized,

”…it is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good.” 

Gallatin argued that since it was the prerogative of the President to negotiate treaties (though only the Congress had power to ratify them), that Jefferson was acting within his role as President and for the public welfare and protection. Jefferson was convinced.

I include this historical narrative in an essay on promotion of the General Welfare to illustrate that it is not a stretch to suppose that the Constitution, even for strict constructionists like Jefferson and Madison, is at all times flexible enough to allow the Government to act in the public good.

While it is agreed that we do not want a Government, ANY Government deciding and defining what ”good” is on all points, yet there are some cases that must be beyond dispute by reasonable persons with any degree of social conscience that manifestly promote the General Welfare.

It must also be said that the qualifying adjective General, referring to General Welfare is prohibitive of government promotion of specific or private interests, which are not General in application. 

Government promotion of benefits that are too narrow, too specialized in interest, too specific, and too limited in impact, is much more of a concern in today’s multi-million dollar political action committee climate, than the common conservative trope that government promoted welfare is too general and broad in effect. We would do well as a People to support those politicians who advocate for campaign finance reforms, the elimination of corporate subsidies, term limits for Senators and Congresspersons, and anti-corruption measures in general.

The Louisiana Purchase presented an opportunity for Jefferson as the Chief Executive to act in what he believed would be the public good. He was correct. At other times in the nation’s history, Presidents and Congress have needed to respond to emergencies and crises. These instances, whether opportunities or emergencies, have been the immediate context for government actions to be taken in promotion of the General Welfare. Thankfully, the Constitution has proven flexible enough to allow for advancement of actions designed to promote public well-being, whether in response to opportunity or emergency.

Among these are many actions undertaken by Lincoln during the Civil War, many provisions of Teddy Roosevelt, including the Panama Canal funding and treaty, as well as the creation of the National Parks system, and other economic provisions of his ”Square Deal”. Promotion of the General Welfare led FDR to enact a ”New Deal” to enable Americans crushed by the Great Depression to survive, find employment, and be prepared for an economic recovery. Add to these LBJ’s ”Great Society” accomplishments, Obama’s financial crisis bailouts, and current efforts spanning two administrations to promote the general welfare in the face of the COVID-19 crisis as further examples of the Federal Government acting in promotion of the General Welfare of the all the People of the country. This is normal, not radical. 

The commonly accepted definition of the verb promote is this: 

1. To further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

There can be no doubt that under this head, and by this definition, the Executive branch has nearly quadrupled from four cabinet positions under the first President, George Washington, to 15 cabinet level Departments in our day. Washington’s cabinet consisted of Secretaries of State, Treasury, War, and an Attorney General. 

To these have been added Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense (no longer a Secretary of War), Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice (wherein the Attorney General presides), Labor, State (Wherein the Secretary of State presides), Transportation, Treasury, and Veteran’s Affairs.

One can see we are quite far from any validity to the ”strict constructionism” argument. None of these Departments was enumerated by the framers. Yet, they created a Constitution outlining a government having the legal framework to achieve the purpose for which it was created. What government would be worth having that had the power to tax only, but not the power to determine the appropriations of those tax monies in promotion of the public good? 

We are in the midst of a current struggle with a global pandemic that has killed half a million fellow Americans. Article 1, Section 8 specifically authorizes the Federal government to fund scientific advancement. Thankfully, this is playing out in our day in the creation of vaccines and the funding of their dissemination which we all hope will end this national nightmare. Can anyone argue that this use of tax revenues is not in the promotion of the General Welfare?

It is my belief that this particular scourge shows us something that touches on all of the tenets of the Preamble. It shows us how inter-connected we are with regard to our own personal health, our economic well-being, our defensive vulnerabilities, and the way stresses of a health-care crisis have revealed racial and financial inequities still in existence in our society.

If this was a conventional war, we would be in the position of creating an army, a navy, an air force, drafting and training soldiers and sailors and pilots, building forts and ports and dockyards, and manufacturing tanks and ships and planes, all while under attack from an enemy already equipped and deployed. If this was a conventional war, we’d be hopelessly behind from our lack of preparedness and our lack of a centralized, fully mobilized national strategy utilizing unified tactics in purpose and resolve.

The framers, when considering the costs of providing for a common defense, argued that the expenditures to prepare, provide, and maintain an adequate military would be far cheaper than the costs of fighting an actual war, especially one that might decimate the Homeland. They were correct then, and their logic is applicable to this current crisis. That logic is what motivates bi-partisan cooperation to fund the Nation’s defensive posture. The same logic needs to be brought to bear for the nation’s healthcare vulnerabilities. 

Can anyone living through this crisis possibly believe that your neighbor’s, your co-worker’s health doesn’t affect you? Do you want your family’s health and even their lives jeopardized because the waitress at the restaurant where you like to eat breakfast cannot afford healthcare and cannot afford to miss work so she came to serve your family while carrying a potentially deadly virus?

I believe that the General Welfare now demands a public healthcare system that is funded by tax revenues. Such a public system will reduce waste, reduce administrative costs, streamline treatment options, etc. that will be far more efficient in advancing the health care needs of the Nation. It is time for the purpose of health care to be caring for health and not generating profits. This is clearly, demonstrably in the public interest.

This pandemic, and our national failure to respond adequately will end up costing well over half a million Americans lives. We won’t know for a decade what the final tally will be to the financial impact. Many small businesses are shuttered for good. More Americans have slipped into poverty, facing eviction, shortages of food, and are without money for utilities, than at any time since the Great Depression of the early 1930’s. 

How is it not less expensive to create a healthcare infrastructure that makes Health and not profits the top priority, than it is to muddle through a catastrophe like the one we are currently mired in, paying trillions as we go? Would such a system not fall exactly under the purpose envisioned by the framers of our government to promote the General Welfare?

The first declared responsibility of the Federal Government

The next two clauses in the Preamble set the stage for traditional subjects of dispute between conservatives and progressives in terms of the priority to be emphasized by the Federal Government.

The framers of the Constitution, as the framers of a building, worked in careful sequence, line upon line, clause upon clause, building up first foundational principles, then erecting walls that could securely stand upon the foundation laid.

To provide for the Common Defence [sic] is therefore the first declared responsibility of the newly created Federal Government.

The first three purposes; Unity, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility, have in mind the creation of an autonomous, independent, uniquely American nation, poised to take its place among the existing nations of the world. Such a nation would be valuable. Its riches deriving both from command of extensive natural resources, and the sum of domestic goods produced by its citizenry. 

The framers purposely crafted a government of limited, enumerated powers. The powers not enumerated, they declared to belong to the States or to be retained by the People. A people, united in purpose and by the affections of national identity, enjoying equal protections of justice under a system of laws, and secured in their persons and possessions by a government committed to insuring the domestic tranquility, would be poised for economic success.

The geographical features of the United States had been exploited for well over a century by European Colonial Empires. In particular, it’s miles of coastline, with ingress provided by navigable bays and rivers, provided an economic engine to the United States, and also presented an indefensible vulnerability at its founding. Politics, Geography, and Economics are inextricably linked in the chain of historical cause and effect.

And a nation capable of producing wealth (and one that had historically produced wealth for other Empires) would become the natural temptation and target of every other more powerful nation. The new nation needed to be adequately prepared and safeguarded. With this in mind, the framers declared the responsibility of the Federal government to provide for the common, shared defensive measures necessary to secure the fledgling nation from hostility. This is a bedrock principle of Federalist, conservative political thought. Rightly so. A nation subject to pillage and plunder from stronger nations leaves nothing left to conserve.

The framers in their wisdom, and in their experience with the European monarchies of their day, knew that control of standing armies was particularly tempting to subversion by tyrants for merely personal reasons. So they placed the army under the shared authority of the elected branches of government. That way, the people would be freed from the fear that the army would be subverted by any one individual or branch, and used against themselves.

The framers declared that Congress would have the power through taxation and control of the budget, to ”raise and support armies” and to ”provide and maintain a navy”. And to Congress alone was given the power to declare war.

Command and control of the operations of the armies belongs to the Executive. That is, the President was granted power to command how the army was used to achieve its mission. The President also functions as Head of State. In this role as chief Diplomat, the President has tremendous opportunity to foster alliances that can keep the nation out of war.

The historical record reveals the nearly unanimous belief that peacetime expenditures to prepare for war would be far less costly to the nation than actual war could be. Washington, in his first Annual Address to Congress said, ”To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”  His advocacy for a standing army, prepared for war as a means of avoiding it, is well known. The founders and early Administrations followed the dicta that peacetime expenditures would cost less, and be more efficiently used than expenditures would be if the country waited to be attacked before making defensive preparations.

The wisdom of these beliefs is shared by both major political parties in our day. The defense appropriations of 2020-2021 passed with bi-partisan super-majorities in both houses of Congress, only to be vetoed by the then sitting, Republican president , for what were widely viewed as unrelated, and purely personal grievances. In its wisdom, Congress voted to override the veto and passed a budget including 706 billion dollars allocated to the Department of Defense.

This amount represents 15% of the federal budget and about half of all discretionary spending. It is also an amount that is greater than the next 10 countries combined. This last fact has some wondering if what has traditionally been a conservative principal has been co-opted by corporations of the so-called ”military-industrial” complex for purely pecuniary gain, in the name of the ”Common Defense”.

Many of the corporations holding contracts for the nation’s defensive efforts are fortune 500 companies whose profits would shrink if the United States Congress shifted budgeting priorities by even a fraction. These companies are powerful lobbyists and donors to the political coffers of those who will continue to apportion huge amounts of the annual budget. Tax dollars that are supposed to fund measures for common defense, not pad the profits of corporations.

Conservatives rightly advocate for an overwhelmingly strong defense. To date, at least in purely military terms, the United States remains without serious rival. But with the march of history, the areas of vulnerability are also shifting. 

The United States began with no navy whatsoever and thousands of miles of coastland to guard. Its commercial vessels were subject to piracy on the high seas. Congress undertook to fund and provide a Navy. It took over a hundred years, but by the end of World War II, the United States Navy was without rival and made the United States the last standing hegemony, able to project power across the globe via its Navy and Air Force.

The Navy protects not only military interests, but also commercial ones. While most overseas commercial trade is still conducted on the water, especially to the Asia Pacific, the proliferation of air-travel and air-freight has made the might of America’s Air Force the envy of the world. 

And it goes without saying that our nuclear arsenal could not only defend us, but could assure the destruction of anything on the planet worth either defending or conquering. Deterrence is the only viable reason for maintaining a nuclear arsenal of weapons.

Now, we face threats to our defense of a different sort, primarily in the cyber world. The recent state-sponsored hacks against our national digital infrastructure reveal a genuine vulnerability, one that cannot go ignored. How will budgeting priorities shift to meet this threat? Should there be a re-prioritization of educational and training resources into this area? Should there be a dedicated Corps or Cadré of elite cyber-security operatives as it’s own part of the defensive command structure?

Also, space is becoming an area of concern with the announcement that China and Russia are in the preliminary planning of a joint permanent outpost on the Moon. Does this development pose a threat to the United States? What is the mission of the newly formed Space Force?

The response to the traditional areas of vulnerability: land and the seas, and the airways; with the newly emerging threats from space and the cyber world, are primarily concerned with defending against State or State-sponsored aggressors.

Yet, the United States remains virtually defenseless against terrorist or lone-wolf attacks. How does the Federal government defend against these threats? Does it mean taking away all of our privacy and liberties in the effort to do so? Does it mean the government can put citizens on ”watch lists” and perhaps even ”kill lists” without due process, and with suspicions typically reserved for known enemies?

And what about the Nation’s diplomatic and humanitarian efforts? Is there any debate that well-funded, highly skilled diplomats and humanitarians actually serve to defend the interests of the United States as they foster understanding and de-escalate tensions abroad? How does the attitude of cooperative, multi-lateral ”friendliness” of the United States translate into tangible defensive efficacy? Might those efforts be particularly worthwhile against non-state, ideologically motivated potential threats?

While there is no serious debate that the United States should not provide for a common defense at all, there remains room, even for patriots, to debate how much is the right amount, and where the funding and efforts should be directed for the stated purpose.

The framers, convened to discuss, debate, and draft a Constitution in 1787, were among the most learned men in the colonies, but they were not mythologically infallible. They debated competing ideas of society and governance from some of the best thinkers and philosophers of Classical Antiquity, the Age of Reason, and the Enlightenment. It is believed that many founders were at minimum, professing gnostics (believers in a God), though some were primarily of the Deist ideology, denying the involvement of a creator God with His creation in any personal way. We know that many were slaveholders. We know that none were women.

They had led the effort to fight and win a difficult, costly war to escape the injustice of British tyranny. The idea of Justice was of paramount importance to them. They were putting away the old, European ideas of justice, to put on the new. And as Americans, we are both humbled and inspired by their efforts. How did they arrive at their concepts and their systems? And what does it mean “to establish Justice”?

To Plato, Justice meant harmony. From Plato’s Republic, the framers would have been introduced to the idea of an integrated, interdependent and harmonious society and system of government. To be established, each part must fulfill its role in relationship with the others. Thus, the formation of three inter-connected, co-equal branches is consistent to the Platonic ideal. 

From Plato’s harmonious framework, as modified by Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Rousseau, and even Hobbes, they sought to craft a government based on the concept that Justice is both an external system of courts, judges, and juries; and an internal quality to be cultivated as the most excellent of human virtues. 

This concept, embodied most fully by the American experiment, is the most radical, fundamental diversion from all previously codified political doctrine. The framers recognized Justice as basic equality in humanity itself. They codified their belief that all men share equally the endowment of inherent rights bestowed by God, not by governments. In recognition of this, they determined to craft a government of law and not of men. A government that would preserve, protect, and foster these inalienable rights. They wanted men unshackled by governmental oppression from either a tyrant, or from a shifting, unstable majority.

To do so, the founders adopted a system of public election combining popular vote with appointed electors in an effort to select only the most highly qualified candidates for public office. Yet, unlike Plato, the only guidelines the framers included were minimum age, residency, and citizenship requirements. In this, the founders were perhaps too optimistic in the belief that the population at large would be able to distinguish between qualified and unqualified candidates. Their hope was that the electoral college, serving by appointment, would correct any deficiencies from the voting public at large. Again, it is notable, that from the beginning, the framers rejected the inclusion of women for election on any basis.

They discarded heredity as a factor in office-holding. From the outset, they flatly rejected the European practice of Monarchy along with its church-supported doctrines of the Divine Rights of Kings. Justice would neither be established, nor dispensed, by either Ecclesiastical or Monarchical decree in the United States.

The framers, with hands burned on the stove of Monarchy, would have had Jefferson’s list of grievances and injustices from the Declaration of Independence in mind as they fashioned a system that did not oppress the weak at the mere will of a King. Yet, they had almost equal distrust of pure Democracy. They wanted a system that gave weight to the codified rule of law as a bulwark against the whims of an ever-changing popular majority. 

Plato’s utopian society of The Republic had been written in answer to the question, ”what is Justice?” His work would shock modern readers for its reach into eugenics, childbearing, parentage, state-run-and-state-provided-health-care (beginning with state mandated exercise and fitness regimens), marriage, property rights, the state run educational system, income and wealth caps, taxation, and the lifetime appointment of ”Guardians” to run the government. It is both fantastic, and fantastical as a work of pure theory as applied to the social construct. It has never been practiced, in toto, in the history of mankind.

But the framers paid homage to this and many ideas of political philosophy as they sought ”to establish Justice”. Like Plato before them, the most well-regarded thinkers of the day would have conceived of Justice as that most difficult to define attribute of human nature and social composition. These philosophers struggled with the institution of slavery. They struggled with ideas of women’s rights. They debated over property rights, and corporations, and voting, and the dangers of mob-rule inherent in Democracy. 

From a historical perspective, we have the luxury of seeing how the framer’s contemporary social detritus, particularly with regard to slavery and women’s rights, clouded and embarrassed some of their decisions. Yet, we can still be thankful that they were not only concerned with the scaffolding of Justice; the mere establishment of courts and judges. Rather, they championed the concept that Justice is the End of Government itself. 

Only a carefully crafted, harmonious system could honor the human virtue of Justice (as the principle that all men are created equal and deserve equal treatment under the law); and simultaneously create an integrated system empowering the Judicial branch (as definers and protectors of Justice and law) to insure that the external system would protect this internal truth.

We marvel at the system of checks and balances created. We admire the elevation of a Judicial Branch as a co-equal with the Legislative and Executive branches. But we recoil at the knowledge we have from the armchair of historical reflection, that these men who espoused Justice as a virtue, nonetheless failed to grant equal protection to either slaves or women in our great founding document. And we are aware that the establishment of Justice, with its great promise of equal treatment under the law is a work still in progress.

Thankfully, the founder’s wisdom is shown in the creation of a document and system flexible and adaptable enough to be cured of oversights and omissions as it strives even now toward the great end: to establish Justice.