7 ms·

That sentence just says why we're making a national government (i.e. giving up some of our rights). It does not create some unlimited requirement for government

That sentence just says why we're making a national government (i.e. giving up some of our rights). It does not create some unlimited requirement for governments (especially state) to do whatever they can to promote general welfare, whatever that means. It doesn't even grant unlimited authority to do so. Or really say anything at all except state a very general purpose for why a national government is a sensible thing to have. > We the People... in order to... [do establish] this Constitution

cocacola1 9d ago
I disagree. The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. "in Order to" makes it clear what the ends of the document are, and what they’re meant to serve. That it doesn’t confer unlimited power is orthodox constitutional law. But the Preamble explicitly states the constitutional purposes that should guide the interpretation and exercise of the powers enumerated. And it doesn’t follow that the purposes it states are legally meaningless. The’re part of the constitutional text and inform how the powers actually conferred by the Constitution are construed. As Story commented: “One of the best established rules of interpretation, one, which common sense and reason forbid us to overlook, is, that when the object of a power is clearly defined by its terms, or avowed in the context, it ought to be construed, so as to obtain the object, and not to defeat it. The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All powers may be abused; but are they then to be abridged by those, who are to administer them, or denied to have any operation? If the people frame a constitution, the rulers are to obey it. Neither rulers, nor any other functionaries, much less any private persons, have a right to cripple it, because it is according to their own views inconvenient, or dangerous, unwise or impolitic, of narrow limits, or of wide influence.”
- pdonis 9d ago
  > The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. It says what the Federal government is for. Not what those other levels of government are for. The Federal government isn't the government that failed to provide clean water in this case; it's not even responsible for providing city water in the first place, city governments are.
  - cocacola1 9d ago
    The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states, and those constitutional restrictions apply to state and local government action.
    - pdonis 9d ago
      > The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.
      - ceejayoz 9d ago
        It says several things, including this: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" One might argue they're not required to provide water, but I'd argue this means they can't knowingly provide dangerous water laced with a neurotoxin and lie about its safety as in this case. (And there's an "equal protection of the laws" aspect to "lead in the water supply tends to disproportionately occur in poor communities", too.)
        deleted 9d ago
        [deleted]
        pdonis 9d ago
        The city is not a State, so that clause would not apply to it. Unless you want to argue that the State of Mississippi was violating the Fourteenth Amendment by not requiring its cities to provide clean water (the article mentions that a few other states have done this). But this suit wasn't against the state.
        ceejayoz 9d ago
        > The city is not a State Oh, come on. This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction. States are co-sovereigns with the Feds. Your city is not. Your city's state cannot allow the local jurisdictions under it violate the Constitution either. Your town can't forbid black people from voting for mayor. etc. etc. etc. For a concrete example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ > Held: Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population. > The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the State or a political subdivision.

cocacola1 9d ago

I disagree. The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. "in Order to" makes it clear what the ends of the document are, and what they’re meant to serve. That it doesn’t confer unlimited power is orthodox constitutional law. But the Preamble explicitly states the constitutional purposes that should guide the interpretation and exercise of the powers enumerated. And it doesn’t follow that the purposes it states are legally meaningless. The’re part of the constitutional text and inform how the powers actually conferred by the Constitution are construed. As Story commented: “One of the best established rules of interpretation, one, which common sense and reason forbid us to overlook, is, that when the object of a power is clearly defined by its terms, or avowed in the context, it ought to be construed, so as to obtain the object, and not to defeat it. The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All powers may be abused; but are they then to be abridged by those, who are to administer them, or denied to have any operation? If the people frame a constitution, the rulers are to obey it. Neither rulers, nor any other functionaries, much less any private persons, have a right to cripple it, because it is according to their own views inconvenient, or dangerous, unwise or impolitic, of narrow limits, or of wide influence.”

pdonis 9d ago
> The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. It says what the Federal government is for. Not what those other levels of government are for. The Federal government isn't the government that failed to provide clean water in this case; it's not even responsible for providing city water in the first place, city governments are.
- cocacola1 9d ago
  The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states, and those constitutional restrictions apply to state and local government action.
  - pdonis 9d ago
    > The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.
    - ceejayoz 9d ago
      It says several things, including this: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" One might argue they're not required to provide water, but I'd argue this means they can't knowingly provide dangerous water laced with a neurotoxin and lie about its safety as in this case. (And there's an "equal protection of the laws" aspect to "lead in the water supply tends to disproportionately occur in poor communities", too.)
      - deleted 9d ago
        [deleted]
      - pdonis 9d ago
        The city is not a State, so that clause would not apply to it. Unless you want to argue that the State of Mississippi was violating the Fourteenth Amendment by not requiring its cities to provide clean water (the article mentions that a few other states have done this). But this suit wasn't against the state.
        ceejayoz 9d ago
        > The city is not a State Oh, come on. This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction. States are co-sovereigns with the Feds. Your city is not. Your city's state cannot allow the local jurisdictions under it violate the Constitution either. Your town can't forbid black people from voting for mayor. etc. etc. etc. For a concrete example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ > Held: Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population. > The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the State or a political subdivision.