Preamble of the Constitution Analysis

The Preamble to the Constitution establishes the tone of the remainder of the document, underscoring the most important feature of a government that is empowered by the will of the people. “We the people,” the first three words of the Preamble, is one of the most important phrases in American political history. With the simple but all-important first person plural pronoun, the framers begin with a resounding sense of what it takes to create a government that is inclusive and collaborative.
Yet American history and politics has continually shown that “we the people” have grappled with the government—in one case leading to war--in order to manifest the principles of “liberty” and other promises the framers had made. When the Constitution was ratified, “we the people” referred only to white males. “We the people” has meant different things at different times, depending not just on demographics but also on changing social norms and ethics. The changing concept of “we the people” reflects the subsequent phrase in the Preamble: “in order to form a more perfect union.” A “more perfect” union is a union that is continually striving for perfection, its best version of itself. It is imperfect, but always willing to grow and change to promote the pursuit of happiness Therefore, an underlying principle embedded in the Preamble to the Constitution is change: the desire to change and the willingness to progress and improve.
The Preamble to the Constitution licenses the American government, providing an executive summary of the fundamental roles the federal government can, should, and will play. Used twice in the Preamble, the word “establish” clearly states the framers’ intent to build, construct, and affirm a formal democratic government. The Preamble is also kept brief, but includes several pithy phrases outlining the mission of the government. Therefore, the Preamble also tacitly limits the government to the primary features listed in the brief opening statement of the Constitution. Those features include “establishing justice,” referring to the judiciary, and “providing for the common defense,” referring to the military and cohesive national defense strategy. The clauses “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” are more complex and nuanced notions of the government’s role in promoting a high standard of living and quality of life for “we the people.” These are phrases that are likely to be interpreted differently by different people, and at different times. Insuring domestic tranquility could refer to the National Guard, but it could also refer to the role of government in protecting clean air and water. Promoting the general welfare could be interpreted as support for robust social services programs, although many Americans would disagree.
Because the phrase “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” concludes the Preamble, it is certain that the framers intended for this document to become the legal contract upon which the government was formed and with which it would be maintained for posterity. The remaining Articles of the Constitution outline the branches of government, their specific roles, functions, and duties, and the limitations on their powers. The phrase “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” opens the door to the Bill of Rights and successive Amendments to the Constitution. Whereas the Articles of the Constitution do not mention specific rights and liberties, the Bill of Rights most certainly does. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the Constitution allow the United States to become a “more perfect union” for “ourselves and our posterity.” In essence, amendments represent change, progress, and shifts in social norms and values. The abolition of slavery and universal suffrage are the two most notable ways Constitutional Amendments have secured the blessings of liberty, creating a more perfect union, and expanding the definition of “we the people/”
By welcoming change, the Preamble prevents the Constitution from becoming stagnant. The document is alive; it is referred to daily by the judiciary, by legislators, and by ordinary citizens. Keeping the Constitution alive through the promise of change is critical to maintaining its relevance for each successive generation of Americans. “Creating a more perfect union” means allowing the people to decide the character and utility of political institutions and governmental structures. Parts of the Constitution are left deliberately vague in order to allow each generation to decide how to best interpret governmental structures and institutions. Interestingly, the Preamble mentions only one main branch of government: the judiciary. In only mentioning justice but neither legislation nor executive leadership, the framers had intended for the judiciary to be the branch of government that is entrusted with the responsibility of guiding social and normative change. The judiciary has in fact risen to the occasion, sometimes making decisions that seem to contradict the core principles of the Preamble and other times, upholding those principles. The Dred Scott decision did not insure domestic tranquility, but Loving v.Virginia (1967) did promote the general welfare. The preamble never claims that the United States is perfect; just that its primary goal is to become more perfect over time.
Another overarching theme in the Preamble is unity. The United States is a union of states, but the Preamble asserts that a federal government is critical to promoting tranquility, welfare, liberty, and all the other lofty goals. Without stating it outright, the Preamble asserts that the whole is more important than its individual parts. In this sense, the battle for states’ rights seems like an affront to the framers, who intended for the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation precisely because a looser affiliation of states could not possibly achieve all the goals listed like “securing the blessings of liberty.” For example, states should not be allowed to determine whether a woman should be forced to carry a child to term—which would categorically represent an affront to human liberty. Yet many people believe that it is acceptable for states to make this decision. Likewise, proponents of states’ rights also believe that it is acceptable to legislate heterosexuality. A “more perfect union” is one that that will “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” not restrict those blessings or selectively meet out liberty.
Forming a more perfect union requires all three branches of government. The Articles of the Constitution outline exactly what those branches are, limits on their powers, and how they relate to one another. The first branch mentioned in the Preamble is the judiciary. As it states, “establish justice,” the Preamble not only affirms the need for a federal Supreme Court that could offer the overriding, unifying voice of “we the people,” but also a Department of Justice. The Preamble therefore lays the foundation for several of the most important political structures, institutions, policies, and practices that promote justice: the determination of what is right and wrong within the existing legal and moral codes. What is exciting about a Constitution that welcomes evolution and change to become a more perfect union is that the role of the Supreme Court, and even lesser federal judiciaries, is to evaluate the Constitutional validity of laws. Interpretations change over time, giving rise to contradictory opinions and Supreme Courts that overturn similar decisions made in previous generations. The most well-known of these examples is Brown overthrowing Plessy but there are numerous other instances in which the judicial branch of government established in the Preamble is the weathervane of prevailing social norms.
Although justice is an end in itself and not subservient to any other goal, role, or function of government, the judicial branch of government is part of the system of checks and balances tacitly embedded in the constitution. Dealt with in Article III of the Constitution, the judicial branch is presided over by the Supreme Court (Article III, Section 1). All the “judicial power” of the United States is “vested in one Supreme Court,” reflecting the intent to “establish justice” throughout the nation (Article III, Section 1.). The justice that has been established is not arbitrary but reflects the unitary voice of “we the people,” which is why Supreme Court decisions can be overturned. As non-binding decisions, they reflect the ethical and political tenor of the times, evolving to form a “more perfect union.”
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution also entrusts Congress with the power to “ordain and establish” lesser or “inferior” courts. Here is an example of the way the three branches of government check and balance one another. Although all judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, only Congress has the ability to determine when (“from time to time”) courts in smaller jurisdictions are needed (Article III, Section 1). Establishing justice is the first specific clause in the Preamble, showcasing how important a strong judiciary is to a fledgling democracy. However, to prevent too much power from being vested in the judiciary, the framers allowed the legislative branch of government to participate in the “establishment” of justice on lower levels of the organizational hierarchy. The states are inferior and answerable to the federal government and its constitutional mandates. If this were not the case, there would be no true “union,” for there would be no unifying ethical principles guiding the principles and procedures of justice.
Reflecting on the states’ rights versus federalist arguments, Article III, Section 1 also shows how the framers intended for the Supreme Court to be the law of the land, the law of the union, the final arbiter. States will be able to pass their own laws, but those laws can be challenged by their citizens or by any legitimate petitioner (Article III, Section 2). The judicial power the Constitution establishes in Article III “shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority,” (Section 2). Section 2 of Article III essentially simplifies the role of the Supreme Court: the Supreme Court will not be concerned with localized matters like city bylaws but it will be concerned with any potential affront to Constitutional authority. Any one state that has a strikingly different demographic or ethical outlook to the rest of the nation will be unable to pass laws within its boundaries that threaten to undermine the principles and goals designated in the Preamble: such as liberty and justice.
Some of the phrasing in the Constitution is vague, perhaps deliberately so due to the knowledge that situations and times do change. For example, the Constitution specifies that there will be judges in the Supreme Court who “shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office,” (Article III, Section 1). Good behavior is a vague phrase: the interpretation of good behavior will be different from one generation to the next; the framers also do not presume to specify what “good behavior” is, but still leaves open the door for impeaching federal judges in order to promote the high standards of justice established in the Preamble. Unlike the Supreme Court, the lesser courts—particularly those that are established at the state level, have jurisdiction over all crimes committed within that jurisdiction. The Supreme Court hears only those types of cases that are listed in Article III. For instance, in addition to its role in settling matters of Constitutionality, the Supreme Court is also the jurisdiction for all “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party,” (Article III, Section 2). Establishing justice at the federal level also means spelling out core crimes against the government, which is why Section 3 of Article III addresses treason.
When forming a government, one of the most important considerations is how it will be structured and what its overall mission and duty will be. The Preamble to the Constitution instantly defines the government of the United States with the first person plural pronoun “we,” and then proceeds to humbly acknowledge that its government is willing to change to become “more perfect.” Moreover, the wishes of passionate anti-federalists were dashed; the Preamble stresses the concept of “union” as being central to making the government work. A fragmented organization will have difficulties collaborating and aligning its mission, vision, and goals. Although the Preamble does not define any specific actions, policies, institutions, or practices, it sets the tenor for these essential features of political culture. The first issue mentioned is justice—which is a complex issue but one that is the cornerstone of the type of society the framers envisioned. Justice means fairness, which implies one unified set of legal principles that each person is judged against. Yet justice also means establishing cohesion between states and the federal government. Establishing justice therefore means ensuring consistency between state and federal law, which is why the Supreme Court is vested with the power and authority to resolve conflicts between states, or to evaluate the legitimacy of any state law in light of Constitutional law and principles.