Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2020 A Lot Went Wrong for Democrats on Election Night

Well stated rporter.

I think the impulse to trivialize the purposes and objectives of a large and defining document as just introductory fluff is a common, but seriously misguided, approach to the implementation of the undertaking. A different example that may be better suited to explain why has to do with an Act of Congress that I have had deep and long-term association with: Community Forest Restoration Act, which resulted in the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program. I sat on the Technical Advisory Panel for four years, reviewing grant proposals - a week long ordeal to choose the 10-12 best projects out of some 40 proposals for funding.

During the first several years of the program, the TAP members were mostly people who had been active in the mission of forest ecosystem restoration for a decade, or more, and they (we) pretty much knew a good proposal when we saw one, but there still had to be a defensible rationale for our choices, or the "howls of the unfunded" would become intolerable. Gradually, the USFS employee in charge of the process massaged the decision process into a fairly lengthy checklist of sorts, and a cumbersome scoring protocol was devised, based upon a list of "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" commandments that were included in the body of the RFP. After about six years, the review and scoring process had become quite lifeless and unsatisfying, and proponents had adopted strategies that were most likely to get the boxes checked, and innovative projects that would actually solve problems in the world of restoration forestry were being largely ignored - reasons cited being that they were "risky", or the reviewers (increasingly not leaders in the field, as they had 'termed out') didn't understand what the proponents wanted to accomplish.

In the course of trying to come up with a way to get back to a better review and selection process, I realized that the TAP was not asking a single question that related to the purposes and objectives of the Act. The entire 'checklist' was about the restrictive covenants from three pages in, and the overarching question, "Will this advance the goals forest restoration", was never discussed.

My opinion is that this exact same situation exists with interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble... the statement of purpose, aims, and justification... is the most important section of the entire document. Without constantly refreshing ourselves with the goals, the enclosed rules are, "death under the breast-bones, hell under the skull-bones", as Walt Whitman once said.

The debate has been going on a long time whether the preamble is just the introduction to the Constitution, like a forward or preface of a book, just the introduction or actually a meaningful part of the Constitution that should be interpreted as law.

That debate will continue on forever or until this nation ceases to exist or as long as we have political parties.

I guess my argument was not persuasive.

I remembered from a symposium I attended around 15-20 years ago where it was explained the term general welfare in the preamble meant the general welfare of the nation. I went searching for more info on that and came across this.

The preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/us#:~:text=The%20preamble%20sets%20the%20stage,government%20powers%20or%20individual%20rights.

Many Rightwingers also feel the Constitution is just a God-damned piece of paper. Doug wrote about it at Capitol Hill Blue back in 2005.

Link please.

Precisely. The founders would have found the notion that government can do anything those currently in power deem to be for the best to be anathema.

How cute, two Righties commiserating over their interpretation of what the Preamble means and what role it has!

Well, I was at a seance last night and had a very deep and long conversation with the Founders on this very subject, and they just laughed at your "interpretation".

"You mean these guys don't think we know how to use the English language?"