You've quoted the preamble accurately enough to assess it, though with far too much capitalization. (In general, only "We", the name of the union, and almost all nouns are capitalized. "defence" is not.) Boiled down to its bare minimum, the preamble asserts this:
"We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This looks like a claim which has a distinct truth-value, namely, either true or not true. Since ordaining and establishing are volitional acts of particular living humans, "We the People" is an extremely broad and sweeping generalization about what was done by each member of the populace of the United States. The premable says that each and every person, even the children and wretched drunks, did some ordaining and establishing. Hard core humanists, however, probably don't like to think of the preamble this way. People who lust for majoritarian populism prefer to think and speak of a will of the people. Still, this is no place for mystical, humanist notions about "the People" acting as single unit. This would be to confuse the set ("the People") with the elements of the set. The set is an abstraction. It isn't a living being, and it has no will or ability to do anything. The elements of the set, on the other hand, are living and breathing people, and the preamble claims to speak for all of them as they were in the U.S. in the late 18th century.
Well, can we know whether or not the preamble was true in the late 1780's, or if it is now? How are we to test it if not against the record of history which clearly indicates that fewer than 1/2 of the people did any ordaining or establishing at all? What happens if, upon looking into the events of the times, we find that many people resisted? And wrote forceful criticisms against the Constitution, which was published without the bill of afterthoughts? (The conventioneers in Philly refused to include a bill of rights.) Some folks perceived correctly the imperialist thrist of the ringleaders before even the publication of Federalist No. 1, which gushes with enthusiasm about "empire" in the very first paragraph.
Given just this much, it sure looks as if the preamble was and is a Big Lie. Honest Constitutionalists, had there been any significant number of them, would have written something like 'We the Ambitious' or 'We the People in Charge', but then the game would have been up immediately. The so-called Anti-Federalists, who were in fact more genuine federalists than the Federalists, would have had all the ammo needed to raise a far greater outcry against the Constitutionalists. 'Who tf do ye think ye are to put yourselves in charge and to overthrow the established system?! And why do ye insinuate that "Justice" has not yet been established??'
It so happened in March of 1788, during the ratification period, that the General Assembly of Rhode Island decided to ignore the ratification clause of Article VII in favor of a referendum. Wikipedia snarlingly describes this as "Flouting the letter and spirit of Article Seven of the proposed Constitution". However, in defense of Rhode Island's leaders, let's admit that before "Establishment" of the Con, A7 is either a restatement of law or it's no law at all. It can be, therefore, safely disregarded and, strictly speaking, didn't even need to be included. Because before "Establishment", Article VII is unestablished.
To understand American Con law, we need to realize that the source of the relevant points of law on ratification and establishment must be outside the C. Since there was no such external source of law, and since class rebels had overthrown the doctrine of divine right when they cast aside the old regime of crown and altar, the Constitutionalists were in a bind. So they just made up their own source of law and slipped it into their imperial document. To beguile the public and to frustrate resistance, the imperialists deployed the sharp sword of populism in their preamble. Now, a quarter of a millenium later, we have "democrats" agitating for ignorant teenaged children to be allowed to vote. Wise suggestions to exclude wastrels, drug addicts, common criminals, and the feeble minded are denounced as as evil.
Fyi, on March 24, 1788, voters in Rhode Island rejected the Constitution by a vote of 2,708 to 237. Just 8.05% supported the Constitution. Since this was an incorrect result, and because the other states had been swept up with enthusiasm for imperial aggrandizement, a convention was later called to manufacture the appearances of acceptance by the people of Rhode Island.
You've quoted the preamble accurately enough to assess it, though with far too much capitalization. (In general, only "We", the name of the union, and almost all nouns are capitalized. "defence" is not.) Boiled down to its bare minimum, the preamble asserts this:
"We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This looks like a claim which has a distinct truth-value, namely, either true or not true. Since ordaining and establishing are volitional acts of particular living humans, "We the People" is an extremely broad and sweeping generalization about what was done by each member of the populace of the United States. The premable says that each and every person, even the children and wretched drunks, did some ordaining and establishing. Hard core humanists, however, probably don't like to think of the preamble this way. People who lust for majoritarian populism prefer to think and speak of a will of the people. Still, this is no place for mystical, humanist notions about "the People" acting as single unit. This would be to confuse the set ("the People") with the elements of the set. The set is an abstraction. It isn't a living being, and it has no will or ability to do anything. The elements of the set, on the other hand, are living and breathing people, and the preamble claims to speak for all of them as they were in the U.S. in the late 18th century.
Well, can we know whether or not the preamble was true in the late 1780's, or if it is now? How are we to test it if not against the record of history which clearly indicates that fewer than 1/2 of the people did any ordaining or establishing at all? What happens if, upon looking into the events of the times, we find that many people resisted? And wrote forceful criticisms against the Constitution, which was published without the bill of afterthoughts? (The conventioneers in Philly refused to include a bill of rights.) Some folks perceived correctly the imperialist thrist of the ringleaders before even the publication of Federalist No. 1, which gushes with enthusiasm about "empire" in the very first paragraph.
Given just this much, it sure looks as if the preamble was and is a Big Lie. Honest Constitutionalists, had there been any significant number of them, would have written something like 'We the Ambitious' or 'We the People in Charge', but then the game would have been up immediately. The so-called Anti-Federalists, who were in fact more genuine federalists than the Federalists, would have had all the ammo needed to raise a far greater outcry against the Constitutionalists. 'Who tf do ye think ye are to put yourselves in charge and to overthrow the established system?! And why do ye insinuate that "Justice" has not yet been established??'
It so happened in March of 1788, during the ratification period, that the General Assembly of Rhode Island decided to ignore the ratification clause of Article VII in favor of a referendum. Wikipedia snarlingly describes this as "Flouting the letter and spirit of Article Seven of the proposed Constitution". However, in defense of Rhode Island's leaders, let's admit that before "Establishment" of the Con, A7 is either a restatement of law or it's no law at all. It can be, therefore, safely disregarded and, strictly speaking, didn't even need to be included. Because before "Establishment", Article VII is unestablished.
To understand American Con law, we need to realize that the source of the relevant points of law on ratification and establishment must be outside the C. Since there was no such external source of law, and since class rebels had overthrown the doctrine of divine right when they cast aside the old regime of crown and altar, the Constitutionalists were in a bind. So they just made up their own source of law and slipped it into their imperial document. To beguile the public and to frustrate resistance, the imperialists deployed the sharp sword of populism in their preamble. Now, a quarter of a millenium later, we have "democrats" agitating for ignorant teenaged children to be allowed to vote. Wise suggestions to exclude wastrels, drug addicts, common criminals, and the feeble minded are denounced as as evil.
Fyi, on March 24, 1788, voters in Rhode Island rejected the Constitution by a vote of 2,708 to 237. Just 8.05% supported the Constitution. Since this was an incorrect result, and because the other states had been swept up with enthusiasm for imperial aggrandizement, a convention was later called to manufacture the appearances of acceptance by the people of Rhode Island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution