Disclaimer: The views expressed on this website do not represent those of any other organization. By publishing and updating this website, the Founder is acting purely in the capacity of a private citizen and a leader of the Preamblist® Movement and not as a representative of any other organization.
Who We Are, Our Purpose, and Why
This is Important
The Preamblist® Movement is an organization dedicated to promoting the rights, goals, and values of both the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. (You may be thinking, I know the Constitution has a Preamble, but does the Declaration? Yes, it does (source). *See section below for more information.*). We call members of the Preamblist® Movement: Preamblists.
We call our political philosophy: Preamblism®. Preamblism® asserts that America should purposefully strive to embody the words of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. You may be thinking, “Well that’s obvious and don’t we already do that?” In its history and present, America has not done this nearly enough. In fact, Preamblism® asserts that our government has sometimes failed to live up to and has even acted counter to the values in the Preambles. These failures demonstrate that we must intentionally, actively, and enthusiastically keep the values of the Preambles front and center as the purpose of our government- this is a key tenet of Preamblism®. Another important principle of Preamblism®, is that the Preambles are at least as equally important as the rest of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the Preambles do not carry much weight in our laws—Preamblism® promotes that they should should carry immense weight. We provide support for all these statements throughout this website.
President Reagan said in his farewell address, “as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours.”source We believe these “first principles” are best captured in the preambles. Therefore, our goal is simple: to help America achieve the promise of the preambles.
“We realized America doesn’t need a new politics, it simply needs to reconnect with its original patriotic traditions.”- The True Patriot, A Pamphlet, by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, E-book ed., Sasquatch Books, 2007. Apple Books, Chapter: A Politics of Purpose.
*The Declaration Of Independence Has A Preamble:
“The Declaration of Independence is made up of five distinct parts: the introduction; the Preamble; the body, which can be divided into two sections; and a conclusion. The introduction states that this document will ‘declare’ the ‘causes’ that have made it necessary for the American colonies to leave the British Empire. Having stated in the introduction that independence is unavoidable, even necessary, the Preamble sets out principles that were already recognized to be ‘self-evident’ by most 18th- century Englishmen, closing with the statement that ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [a people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.’” (Bolding is my own). (source)
“Few words in American history are invoked as often as those from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, published nearly 250 years ago.” (Bolding is my own). (source)
Preamble to the Declaration
of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.source
Preamble to the Constitution
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. source
The Preamblist® Values
Preambles state that our government exists to achieve specific rights and goals - we call these “The Preamblist® Values” and here they are, directly quoted from the preambles (all capitalization is as found in the respective documents):
Values Found in the Declaration of Independence Preamble:
“All men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
“Life”
“Liberty”
“the Pursuit of Happiness”
“consent of governed”
“Safety and Happiness”
“future security.” (source)
Values Found in Constitution Preamble:
“We the People”
“a more perfect Union”
“Justice”
“domestic Tranquility”
“common defense”
“general Welfare”
“Liberty”
“our Posterity” (source)
Lincoln was inspired by the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. He directly references it in the Gettysburg Address when he says “Four score and seven years ago…” (which is how long before his address the Declaration was written) “…our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” (italics added by me to show him using the exact same words as in the Preamble of the Declaration). He also builds on “consent of the governed” from the Declaration Preamble and “We the People” from the Constitution Preamble when he says “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (source)
“The Preamble (to the Constitution) describes the core values that the Constitution seeks to achieve: democratic government, effective governance, justice, and liberty…it provides the lens through which the Constitution can be examined, articulating the basic values of the document that follows.” - We the People, A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century by Erwin Chemerinsky, Picador, November 2018, page 24.
An Important Aspect in Living Up to the Preambles: Self-Reflection
To fully benefit from the Preambles, we must be self-reflective, self-aware, and self-critical. We must be able to admit that America has done some good acts and some terrible ones so we can learn from our successes and mistakes. Self-criticism does not mean we do not love America; it means we love it.
As James Baldwin stated, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” (source)
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated in a speech in which he sharply criticizes the Vietnam War “I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.” (source)
As Frederick Douglass stated in a speech critical of slavery, “Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory...Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. ‘The arm of the Lord is not shortened,’ and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.” (source)
“Dissent is as much a measure of patriotism as service is…The American way is always to be searching for a better way; to question constantly whether we are living up to our ideals.” The True Patriot, A Pamphlet, by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, E-Book ed, Sasquatch Books, 2007, Apple Books Chapter: True Patriotism: A Manifesto
Unfortunately Our Government does not Always follow the Preambles
In our opinion, all branches of our government do not always follow the preambles. First, the Preambles do not carry much weight in our laws:
“Unfortunately, the Preamble (of the Constitution) has been largely ignored in Supreme Court decisions and scholarly writings.” (source: We the People, A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century, by Erwin Chemerinsky, November 2018, page 24.)
“No lawsuit can be founded on the Preamble. In the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Justice Harlan wrote that while ‘the Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted.’” (source)
As for the Preamble of the Declaration, this has limited weight too since the entire “Declaration of Independence has no legal authority” (source) and Supreme Court “Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Declaration of Independence ‘is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts.’” (source)
That the Preambles do not carry much weight in courts, including the Supreme Court, is extremely concerning to us. The Supreme Court is the branch of government that asserts it has the right of determining what is constitutional or not,(source) and it is a great shame that the Justices do not always factor the Preambles into that determination. In fact, it seems to us that the Supreme Court sometimes completely forgets about the preambles. Perhaps that is one reason why the Supreme Court ended up issuing some terrible decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) in which it “stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or any courts.”(source) In issuing this ruling, the Supreme Court goes directly against many of the words of the preambles we shall cover such as “all men are created equal,” “liberty,” “justice,” and more.
And it’s not just the judicial branch. All branches of the federal government as well as state and local governments seem to us to sometimes completely forget about the great words of the preambles. For how could an Executive Branch that truly upholds the words of the preambles, separate migrant children from their parents at the border as recently as 2017?(source a, source b) How could a Legislative Branch that truly upholds the words of the preambles pass the Indian Removal Act in 1830?(source) More recently, how could a Legislative Branch that upholds the words of the preambles which include “life,” “safety,” “domestic tranquility,” and “our posterity” fail to pass any legislation after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting until years later?(source) How could local governments that uphold the words of the preambles fail their constituents so terribly in Flint, Michigan (2014) and Jackson, Mississippi (2022) in performing the most basic service of a city government: providing safe drinking water?
“In the few occasions over the last century in which the Preamble has been mentioned, the Supreme Court has summarily rejected its relevance to constitutional interpretation and decisions. The result is that it plays no role in constitutional arguments and analysis.” - We the People, A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century by Erwin Chemerinsky, Picador, November 2018, page 55.
Neglecting the Preamble to the Constitution, “has been a mistake because the Preamble states the ideals for the Constitution and for the republic. It also is a mistake to ignore any words of the Constitution in interpreting the document…By ignoring the Preamble, we forget the idealistic vision that inspired the Constitution and what it was meant to achieve.” - We the People, A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century by Erwin Chemerinsky, Picador, November 2018, pages 56-57.
Why and for Whom We Promote the Preambles
We promote the Preambles because they are “The Why” of our government
“The WHY is a purpose, cause, or belief, the underlying reason why we are motivated to do something. The reason why a company exists.”- as stated by the oft-referenced author and motivational speaker Simon Sinek.
We should promote the preambles because they state the very reason that our government exists. The Declaration preamble states, “That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”(source) Likewise the Constitution Preamble states that the Founders are creating the constitution “in Order to”(source) achieve the values stated withinsource. The Preambles are “the WHY”(source) for our government.
This “WHY”(source) is so important that the Declaration of Independence preamble states, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”(source) In other words, the Preamblist® values trump the government itself. Furthermore “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”(source) This means that the “WHY”(source) is so important that when the government is majorly failing to achieve it consistently, we must change it.
We promote the Preambles because they are the moral compass we should follow to achieve true greatness
We should strive to embody the Preambles because this will help us act with morality and be the best country we can be. Some discuss American greatness in context of “American exceptionalism,” “the idea that the United States and its people hold a special place in the world.” (source) “Most statements of ‘American exceptionalism’ presume that America’s values, political system, and history are unique and worthy of universal admiration. They also imply that the United States is both destined and entitled to play a distinct and positive role on the world stage.” (source)
Preamblists do not believe that America is exceptional simply because it is America. After all, America has achieved some great acts and committed some terrible ones. Instead, we believe that America is great and moral when we take actions that achieve the Preambles. American exceptionalism will not just happen naturally. Instead, we must very intentionally choose to be great and moral and the way to do this is to use the Preambles as our compass.
And the Preambles do not just apply to America as a whole- they apply to each individual and organization, especially our own. Therefore Preamblism® always strives to act honorably in accordance with the preambles- we put achieving the goals of the Preambles ahead of our own personal and organization’s ambitions because we recognize the often-enormous impact of political decisions. As Frederick Douglas stated, “Statesmen, beware what you do. The destiny of unborn and unnumbered generations is in your hands.” (source) Part of acting honorably is telling the truth because it’s only by telling the truth that we can achieve the preambles.
As an organization, we take honor very seriously. The Preamblist® board can expel a member that is deemed dishonorable due to acting in their personal interests or that of the organization in a way that is not consistent with the preambles.
“Truly patriotic leaders do not ask first about party or electoral prospects; they ask first about country. They ask us to do more. They tell us things we may not want to hear, but should.” The True Patriot, A Pamphlet, by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, E-book, ed., Sasquatch Books, 2007, Chapter: True Patriotism: A Manifesto
We Promote the Preambles for Today and the Future
Let us continue in the spirit of the necessity for American self-criticism that we mentioned previously. Although we recognize and honor the Founders’ many great achievements, especially the Preambles, we strongly condemn their practice and acceptance of slavery, treatment of Native Americans, and denial of rights and privileges to women. The Founders confuse us because, on the one hand, they wrote soaring rhetoric in the Preambles about universal human rights while at the same denying those very same rights to many. We honor the good that the Founders did but condemn the evil. Therefore, our creed is less about trying to make America in the image of the Founders, and more about following the spirit of their great ideals as stated in the Preambles. Our goal is not to try to go back in time to determine what the Founders wanted. Instead, our goal is to achieve the Preambles as we interpret them now for the benefit of today and the future.
Even if you do not fully share this goal, but instead believe that we should try to follow the intent of the Founders, then logically, you should place value on the words in the Preambles. For to not do so would be illogical because you would be ignoring the intent of the Founders in their own words.
“Later generations of the American people have surged through the Preamble’s portal and widened it’s gate. Like constitutions, amendments are not just words but deeds—flesh-and-blood struggles to redeem America’s promise while making amends for some of the sins of our fathers.”- Akhil Reed Amar in America’s Constitution, A Biography, E-book ed., Random House, 2005. Apple Books
We Promote the Preambles for All People
As just stated, our goal is to embody the Preambles as we interpret them today. And today, most people interpret the word “Men” in “all Men are created equal” (source) in the Preamble to the Declaration as all People. Incidentally, many argue that the Founders did indeed intend this meaning. As stated at the Library of Congress website, “Within the context of the times it is clear that ‘all men’ was a euphemism for ‘humanity’”source. We hope that was the intent of the Founders, but, even if it wasn’t, when we talk of the Preamble to the Declaration, Preamblists interpret and strongly assert that “all Men are created equal”source should mean all People are created equal.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated about the Declaration of Independence:
"Now, we notice in the very beginning that at the center of this dream is an amazing universalism. It does not say some men, but it says all men. It does not say all white men, but it says all men, which includes black men. It does not say all Gentiles, but it says all men, which includes Jews. It does not say all Protestants, but it says all men, which includes Catholics."source
Furthermore, the Constitution Preamble famously starts with “We the People”source - not “We the ____ People” in which the blank is a specific characteristic.
Preamblists® believe and strongly assert that “We the People”source means all people. Therefore, Preamblism® calls on us to strive to achieve the same rights and Preamblist® values for all people— each and every individual. Along those lines, Preamblists reject racism, sexism, and any ideology that discriminates against others. Additionally, we believe all Americans deserve an equal voice in government and therefore we stand against the ability of any citizen or organization to use their wealth to have greater influence in government than other citizens. We also notice that each of our major political parties sometimes tries to claim that they represent “the American people.” Preamblism® recognizes that neither political party could possibly represent the full diversity of the American people.
“Blood that has soaked into the sands of a beach is all of one color. America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way.'' (source, bolding and underline is my own).- President Reagan
We promote the Preambles because they Foster Well-balanced, Common-Sense, Evidence-Based Solutions (and help reject extremism, dogmatism, partisanship, and false dichotomies)
The values stated in the preambles (the Preamblist® Values) are general/broad values without specificity. (As listed previously, the Preambles state the values of "all people are created equal...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, “safety and happiness,” “We the People,” “justice,” “liberty,” “general welfare,” “tranquility,” “common defense,” and a “more perfect union.” As mentioned previously, we call these the “Preamblist® Values.”)
Rather than being a weakness, this generality is a strength because it enables us to be flexible in how we achieve them and then make adjustments as the world changes or as we see strong evidence for a better way forward. If the values were more specific, we would be more limited in our tactical options towards a better future. You may be thinking, “isn’t too much flexibility dangerous?” Yes, but the Preamblist® Values also sets a boundary beyond which we should not stray which we will cover in the next few paragraphs.
Importantly, the preambles do not put the values in any particular hierarchy- for example, the preambles do not state that “justice" is more important than "liberty." Therefore, the preambles call on us to follow all these values together because all are important. The preambles don't allow us to cherry-pick just a few of the Preamblist® values that best support our prior interpretation and ignore the ones that don't. Furthermore we cannot take one value to such an extreme that it overly crushes other values. Instead Preamblism® believes we must consider ALL the Preamblist® Values together and determine what course of action best achieves them ALL in balance with each other. The necessity to never overly crush any of the values is the boundary beyond which we should not stray we referred to in last paragraph.
To demonstrate the concepts introduced so far in this section, here is an example:
In reaction to the wave of mass shootings and gun violence in certain cities, a Preamblist® would be inclined to revisit the right balance between the values of safety and liberty as it applies to gun ownership, because a Preamblist® would likely reason that the value of safety was being overly crushed. A Preamblist® would likely put more emphasis on safety even if it takes away some gun ownership liberty but only to an acceptable level that would not overly infringe on this liberty. Preamblism® would use evidence and peer reviewed research to evaluate tactics such as more safety officers in schools, assault weapons limits, stronger background checks with no loopholes, and red flag laws.
This “Preamblist® approach” leads to well-balanced solutions and helps us liberate ourselves from the ideologies of our current two party political system. Instead of worrying about whether an idea or action is liberal or conservative, we can instead ask, “does it achieve ALL the Preamblist® Values?” Sometimes the values will work together well, but when they conflict, we must find the right balance between them. Of course, we won't always agree on what constitutes exactly the right balance but the key is that we are trying to achieve the balance and adjusting when the balance does not seem optimal. This approach allows us to be open to and embrace the best ideas or combination of ideas from across the political spectrum.
This approach is quite different from what some members of the Democratic and Republican parties seek. Some members of the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be willing to drive certain Preamblist® values forward to such an extent that it overly infringes on some others either because they are catering to their extremist voters or they are extremists themselves.
Preamblists are different from these politicians. Preamblism®:
rejects that one Preamblist® Value should be achieved by sacrificing another.
rejects extremism, strict adherence to an ideology (dogmatism) or political party platform (partisanship).
rejects the false dichotomies and labels which oversimplify issues as a choice between two extremes with no room for moderate or different positions (e.g. pro-choice v. pro-life; pro-gun v. anti-gun; socialist v. capitalist; liberal v. conservative; Democrat v. Republican).
By rejecting these, we are freeing ourselves to find the best solutions. Instead of ideologies, we use the best peer reviewed science, research and evidence to identify the solutions that are most likely to succeed in achieving all the “Preamblist® Values” together and in balance with each other.
For example, let's look at economic policy. Although we could apply all the Preamblist® Values to this topic, let's take just two that can sometimes work together or be in conflict: “Liberty” and “general welfare.” Because of the value of “liberty,” it would be hard for a Preamblist® to be an extremist supporting the idea that the economy should be based on government-run socialism. Likewise, because of the value of “general welfare,” it would be hard for a Preamblist® to be an extremist supporting unbridled free market capitalism that allows some poorer citizens to suffer greatly. Instead, because both the values of “liberty” and “general welfare” are in the preambles, we must strive for an economic system that achieves both. In other words, the economy we strive for must allow "liberty" while at the same time supporting "general welfare" and when those two values work together, then that's fantastic, and when those two values conflict with each other, then we must find the right balance between them. Of course, we won't always agree on what constitutes exactly the right balance but the key is that we are trying to achieve the balance and adjusting if the balance does not seem right. This approach, which is a key tenet of Preamblism®, allows us to be open to and embrace the best ideas or combination of ideas from across the political spectrum. To continue with the example, our approach allows us to take both the best of capitalism and the best of socialism and merge them together. How do we determine what is the best of both? By using the best peer-reviewed research on economics.
There is a value on which we never compromise and never balance with other values: We always believe all people “are created equal…with certain unalienable rights.” Therefore, we never, ever discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, or other protected classes. For example, we would never have supported the internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II. Likewise, we would never have supported slavery or Jim Crow laws.
We promote the Preambles Because they Help Achieve Solutions Which Involve Virtuous Cycles, Positive Feedback Loops, Mutually Reinforcing Progress, and Win-Win Solutions
An added bonus of using the Preambles is that we are more likely to find solutions in which each person benefits precisely because others do too, and in which progress in one area of society leads to progress in another area which in turn leads to more progress in the first area and so on– we can call this a virtuous cycle, a positive feedback loop, mutually reinforcing progress, a win-win solution, or the rising tide lifts all boats. Whatever we call it, it’s important to call out that these types of solutions are possible especially because we frequently hear the opposite sentiment; we frequently hear, we can’t improve one aspect of society because improving it will hurt another aspect. For example, we have heard others state with frequency something like “we can’t make a certain environmental improvement because it will hurt the economy” or “we can’t improve health care for all because of the toll on the economy,” or “if we let those immigrants in legally, I will suffer.” Although there may be some merit to these statements in the short run, we believe that in the long-run these statements are mostly wrong. For example, Preamblism® generally states that, in the long-run:
a better environment results in a stronger economy,
a population with access to health care forms a workforce that drives a stronger economy,
and immigration leads to a stronger economy for all.
Of course the devil can be in the details so we need to be smart about how we make these improvements…but if we implement intelligent solutions, we believe that in the long run we can often achieve mutually reinforcing progress.
Importantly, we can even achieve these positive feedback loops by using a combination of ideas that are sometimes perceived from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Continuing with our example of economic policy: Democrats tend to believe that strong government programs (such as strong public education) are necessary to achieve an economy that best serves the people. On the other hand, Republicans tend to believe that a freer economy will achieve the best results. And based on the way the two parties argue publicly about these ideas, you could think the two views are completely incompatible. However, Preamblists are open to both views because both, when not taken to an extreme, align with several Preamblist® values (at least “general welfare” and “liberty” respectively). Furthermore we believe that both beliefs can actually work well together to form a positive feedback loop (this is a simplified version to illustrate the point):
history shows that a free economy tends to be a stronger economy
a stronger economy provides wealth which the government can tax to fund programs.
government programs provide education and health care to the workforce
a healthy and educated workforce drives a stronger economy (especially when the workers are in a free economy that gives them a choice in to work in the jobs in which they can add the most value by applying their particular skillset and talents.)
“(T)he Strongest Streak in the American character is a fierce pragmatism that mistrusts blind ideology of every stripe and insists on finding what really works.” The True Patriot, A Pamphlet, by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, E-book ed., Sasquatch Books, 2007, Apple Books, Chapter: True Patriotism: A Manifesto.
“Government does create prosperity and growth by creating the conditions that allow both entrepreneurs and their customers to thrive; balancing the power of capitalists like me and workers isn’t bad for capitalism - it’s essential to it.” Nick Hanauer (source)
“Every fortune was built upon safe roads, strong backs, clean air, and bright minds developed by the community, through taxes—and that taxes are therefore no just the price we pay for a health nation but the gift we make to our own children.” The True Patriot, A Pamphlet, by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, E-book ed., Sasquatch Books, 2007, Apple Books, Chapter: True Patriotism: A Manifesto.
Put another way to emphasize the win-win here between different areas of society that are sometimes portrayed as being against each other:
companies, including large corporations, provide well-paying jobs which provides tax revenue to governments to fund its programs,
government programs help provide companies with well-educated and healthy workers.
We Promote the Preambles for Future Generations
Importantly, the Preamble to the Constitution does not just call on us to value all living people. It states, “ourselves and our Posterity.”source Posterity means “all the people who will live in the future”source—in other words, our children, nephews, nieces, and their children and so on. Preamblism® believes in creating a foundation upon which future generations can succeed rather than imposing a future burden from actions taken in the present. Preamblists do not just focus on the present, but we also intentionally factor in the wellness of all future people into every major government decision. This is especially relevant for our views on protecting the environment and reducing the national debt.
“The real American Dream is to build a legacy that endures; to aspire for your children more than for yourself, and to leave them with truly equal opportunities to live to the fullest of their potential.” The True Patriot, A Pamphlet, by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, E-book ed, Sasquatch Books, 2007, Chapter: True Patriotism: A Manifesto
We promote the Preambles because they help unite Americans
Americans can unite around the Preambles regardless of party or ideology just like the Founders did over two hundred and thirty years ago. Our diverse country benefits from a creed that remind us that there is more that unites than divides us and the Preambles are that creed. As of writing this in 2022, it is obvious we need reminders of what unites us.
We Promote the Preambles for Individuals and Communities:
“Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two themes: individual rights and the right of revolution.”- https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/declaration-of-independence.html
It is well known that the Preamble to the Declaration covers individual rightssource. It is less well recognized that the Preamble of the Constitution covers community-based goals: “a more perfect Union,” “common defense,” and “general Welfare.”source With the words I italicized: union, common, and general, the Founders seem to be emphasizing community-based goals, not just individual rights. The Preambles therefore encourage our government to ensure the wellness of not just the individual, but also the community. Thus, Preamblism® recognizes the importance of both the individual and the community and that the two are intertwined. For what are communities, but a group of individuals? In turn, these communities of individuals form a county or parish of individuals, then a state of individuals, then our country of individuals. Preamblism® recognizes that individuals act and thrive within larger communities, as long as the communities preserve the rights of the individuals. To promote the “life,” “pursuit of happiness,” and “Safety and Happiness” of individuals, we must promote the health of communities, while not infringing on the individual’s “Liberty” nor sacrificing “Justice.”("life", "pursuit of happiness," "Safety and Happiness," and "Liberty" are from the Declaration of Independence Preamblesource while "Liberty" and "Justice" are also found in the Preamble to the Constitutionsource) This topic is very important because a common theme to debates today seems to be between individual rights and the broader community. The Preambles tell us the answer—both are important.
Preamblists believe individual rights and the health of the community are usually complementary to each other because, as stated, a community is simply a group of individuals living togethersource. Most of the time, upholding an individual right upholds the rights of a community as a whole and vice versa. For example, most of the time, freedom of speech is an incredibly important right with positive results for both individuals and communities. But there are times when application of an individual right to an extreme degree can hurt the broader community. For example, there is speech that is likely to incite “imminent lawless action” (Supreme Court, Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969)a.source, b.source, c.source. In instances such as this, when one right (freedom of speech) taken to an extreme (inciting “imminent lawless action” ibid-a,b) infringes on the broader community’s safety, there is a need to ensure a balance between the individual right and the safety of the community. To not strike this balance would be to ignore the community-based values stated in the Preamble to the Constitution (as well as the Preamblist® values of the individual(s) that could be harmed by the “imminent lawless action”ibid-a,b incited by this action). The key word here is balance–a Preamblist® does not believe in suppressing individual rights in the name of the community for to do so would be to violate the Preamble to the Declaration.
Another example is “the right to bear armssource” set out in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Some people interpret this Amendment to mean that an individual has the right to own a powerful weapon in their home or carry it with them— most who hold this view interpret this as an individual right. A Preamblist® believes this individual right needs to be balanced with the rights of the other people in that individual’s broader community. If it is harmful for the broader community for an individual to carry weapons of certain power, then the individual right should be balanced with the risk to the larger community. We talk more about “the right to bear armssource” in the next section.
“In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that ‘the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’”- https://www.mtsu.edu/first-Amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio and https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action/:
We Promote the Preambles to Interpret the Rest of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights
Preamblism® respects, honors, and values the entire Constitution: The Preamble, the Articles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments. A Preamblist® also believes that Americans benefit when we read and interpret every part of the Constitution in combination with both of the Preambles. You may be thinking, why use the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence to interpret the Constitution? We believe that Abraham Lincoln answers this question beautifully (in Fragment on the Constitution and Union (Jan. 1861) by stating the importance of the Declaration in underpinning the Constitution:
“All of this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all”—the principle that clears the path for all—gives hope to all—and, by consequence, enterprize (sic), and industry to all.
The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture.
So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger." (emphasis in original)source
In this statement above, “Lincoln artfully described the nexus between the Declaration (the apple of gold) which articulates a principle upon which the American nation was founded and the Constitution (the silver frame adorning the apple of gold) which is the practical attempt to achieve the Declaration’s ideals through a free government."source The Declaration is “a document that Abraham Lincoln praised as the ‘apple of gold’ without which the Constitution—the ‘picture of silver’—would tarnish."source In other words, Lincoln believed in the fundamental relationship of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—the Constitution would be “blurred, or bruised or broken” without the Declaration. Therefore, this supports our point that the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, should be interpreted with the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence in mind.
However, it seems to us that some Americans often interpret many parts of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, without the context of either or both Preambles. Take David Tribes about the second Amendment to the Bill of Rights:
Tribes: “when the constitution says, ‘shall not be infringed,’ that’s what it says and that’s what we are going to defend.”
Reporter: “Tell me what ‘shall not be infringed’ means to you”
Tribes: “That means that the government has no authority to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms, I mean that’s what the second Amendment says.”
Reporter: “Whatsoever? Is that where you’re coming from, like are all gun laws unconstitutional.”
Tribes: “Yes, it is, I would say that."source
As stated by the reporter to the audience of this podcast,
this was in Virginia only “months after a gunman killed 12 people in Virginia Beach” and after “Democrat (Governor) Ralph Northam proposed sweeping gun regulations.” In this context, David Tribes commented: “The Governor doesn’t care about the Constitution of the United States, he doesn’t care about the rights of people.source”
In this exchange, David Tribes seems to be saying that the only words that matter are those in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights that read “shall not be infringed.” Furthermore, David Tribes is saying that those, like Governor Northam, who take other considerations into account do not “care about the Constitution” and “the rights of people.” This is exactly what we mean by reading and interpreting the Bill of Rights without the context of the Preambles.
Following this logic, it doesn’t matter what the Preamble to the Constitution says even though it’s in the very same document as the Bill of Rights. To us, this is unfortunate, because the Constitution’s Preamble contains values that are relevant to gun rights on both sides of the debate such as “liberty,” “domestic Tranquility”, and “general welfare”.
You may be thinking something like, “so what, David Tribes is a fringe extremist and he does not hold the political office to put his views into full effect.” But, unfortunately, interpreting the Bill of Rights without the Preambles is not just limited to fringe extremists who do not hold political office. Look at the landmark decision on gun rights District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled against the District of Columbia by stating its “handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. (source)” In this same ruling, Supreme Court Justice Scalia states:
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."source
Set aside for a moment whether you think that the result of this ruling is correct or not. Scalia and the four other concurring justices seem to be saying that although handgun violence may be a problem, perhaps a serious one, that doesn’t matter as much as the words of the Second Amendment (as they interpret those words), because those words are in the Constitution. But, using that same logic, these words of its Preamble also appear in the Constitution and are therefore also important: “domestic tranquility,” “safety” and “common welfare.” And these words strongly imply that the question of whether handgun violence is a problem is extremely important. To not factor those words into a decision on the meaning of the second Amendment is to ignore a crucial part of the Constitution. Therefore, a Preamblist® believes that in this ruling, Scalia and the concurring justices are not considering the context of the Preambles.
A key point here is that when the Justices, or anyone for that matter, state that certain words of the Constitution are important precisely because they are in the Constitution, then, to be logically consistent, they must also treat all words of the Constitution as important, including those in its Preamble. Scalia himself states, “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what is says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say"source (emphasis added). Well, the Constitution has a Preamble that “says what it says,” so let’s factor in its words too. Scalia was a textualist who believed that “the text is the law."a.source b.source Using that same logic, there is text in the Preamble to the Constitution which should also be factored into decisions about the law.
So far in this section, we have stated and provided support for our assertions that Americans should read and interpret the entire Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, alongside the context of the Preamble to the Constitution and the Preamble for the Declaration of Independence. You may be thinking, so what? Don’t the Articles and Bill of Rights of the Constitution align so well with the Preambles that when we follow their words, we are following the Preambles? And we answer, “most of the time, yes.” For example, most of the time the rights in the Bill of Rights and the values in the Preambles are mutually reinforcing. But not all the time nor in all interpretations. (Note, parts of this will get somewhat repetitive of what we discuss in the “We Promote The Preambles for Individuals and Communities” section above, but this is because it’s a really important point). There are times when a right in the Bill of Rights, if taken to an extreme, can run counter to the values in the Preambles. This is not an original thought, and a classic example involves the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states in part, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (which most of us shorten to “freedom of speech”). As previously stated, most of the time, freedom of speech is an incredibly important right and upholding this right is entirely consistent with the values in the Preambles especially “Liberty.” But even the right to freedom of speech has limits—“First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say ‘I am going to kill you’ or to announce in an airport, ‘I am going to bomb this plane.’"source From a Preamblist® point of view, speech that is “a true threat” would likely create risk to the Preamblist values of “life,” “happiness,” “safety, “domestic tranquility,” “common defense,” and “general welfare.” Therefore, we must ensure balance between these values of the Preambles and the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, we believe it is crucial to interpret the Bill of Rights and Articles of the Constitution with the Preambles in mind. The Preambles help provide a roadmap to achieve the right balance between our rights, values, and goals, ensuring that we do not sacrifice one by taking another too far.
The Preambles are especially helpful when applied to the most debated areas of the Bill of Rights. For example, we come back to the second Amendment of the Bill of Rights that is interpreted in different ways. The Second Amendment states “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”source Some interpretations of this Amendment focus on the second half “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”ibid and determine in favor of Americans being able to own and carry powerful guns in all facets of life (at home, in public places, concealed and unconcealed). Other interpretations focus on the first half of this Amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”ibid to claim that the Founders meant for citizens to carry arms only in association with the military and protection of the nation. A Preamblist® believes we can reconcile these different interpretations by looking at all the relevant values of the Preambles. In this case, the most relevant Preamblist® values may be “life,” “liberty,” “safety,” “domestic tranquility,” “common defense,” and “general welfare.” Preamblism® tries to resolve the different interpretations of the Second Amendment by asking two essential questions:
In what circumstances does the right to bear arms most advance these Preamblist® values, and
In what circumstances does it detract from them?
Preamblists try to find the point at which the “right to bear arms” best aligns with these Preamblist® values and reflect that point in our laws. Key to this endeavor is to ensure that we consider all the Preamblist® values and the rights in the Bill of Rights together. For example, Preamblists believe we can’t overly infringe on the “liberty” of Americans, and, at the same time, we can’t take “right to bear arms” to the point at which it harms the values of “life,” “safety,” and “general welfare.” Finding this balance is not an easy process but, in our opinion, it’s a vital one.
Our point now is not to get too deep into the Second Amendment. The larger point is that it is crucial to interpret the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution with the Preambles and their values in mind. Support for incorporating the Preamblist values into the interpretation of the Bill of Rights is actually found in the Bill of Rights itself, where the Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.source” In this Amendment, it is clear that some of the Founding Fathers were concerned that a specific right called out in the Bill of Rights would end up infringing on other rights not specifically stated in that document a.source b.source c.source. To paraphrase, they were saying that we shouldn’t give up our common sense by taking a right stated in the Bill of Rights to a ridiculous extreme when it is clearly hurting other rights not stated in that document. And what are those other rights not stated in the Bill of Rights? We believe many of them are stated in the Preamblist® Values.
“The Ninth Amendment is a constitutional safety net intended to make clear that individuals have other fundamental rights, in addition to those listed in the First through Eighth Amendments. Some of the framers had raised concerns that because it was impossible to list every fundamental right, it would be dangerous to list just some of them (for example, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and so forth), for fear of suggesting that the list was complete. This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise.”- https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/ninth-Amendment/
“When the newly drafted Constitution arrived at the ratifying state conventions, it met with something less than universal acclaim. Antifederalists made a particular point of criticizing the draft for lack of a bill of rights… Federalist defenders of the draft made three responses…Finally (third), they argued that any specification of rights would inevitably be incomplete and that by enumerating some rights, a bill of rights might imply that others were not worthy of protection.- 5b. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers/125/ “Our Unsettled Ninth Amendment: An Essay on Unenumerated Rights and the Impossibility of Textualism,” Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, March 2010, pages 8-9:
“With regard to non-enumerated rights, the text of the Ninth Amendment states, ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’ Freedom of speech is an enumerated right. Abortion is not. But the enumeration of freedom of speech and other rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights, not similarly enumerated — such as the right to have an abortion.”- https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3264250-the-problem-with-gotcha-textualism/:
Furthermore, we believe that the Bill of Rights works very well when paired with the Preambles. The broad goals stated in the Preambles provide context to the more specific rights stated in the Bill of Rights. Above all, we believe, the Preambles provide the intent behind the Bill of Rights. In other words, the Preambles provide “the WHY”source behind the Bill of Rights. For example, why do we have the right to bear arms? To achieve the values in the Preambles. When should that right have limitations? When it harms some values in the Preambles.
There is another way that the Preambles are different from but work beautifully alongside the Bill of Rights which lies in the concepts of negative rights and positive rights. People often point out that the Bill of Rights focuses on negative rights: “All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide…source” In our opinion, one great aspect of the Preambles is that they contain positive rights and values. After all, the Declaration Preamble states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted”source which is a statement of what governments should do (implying positive rights). Similarly, the Constitution Preamble states positive goals by declaring they are creating the constitution “in Order to” achieve the values of “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “domestic Tranquility,” “common defense,” “general Welfare,” and “Liberty.”source These positive rights and goals are broad and general, but as we stated above, these characteristics work well with the specificity of the Bill of Rights.
