rumitoid

I have spent only the afternoon researching this subject but feel I may have a jump on some of you in understanding who have not recently or directly studied this question or looked deeply into the full import of this phrase, so I will presently refrain from comment. This point has been hugely controversial even as the Constitution was being framed and ever after that momentous document became the basis of our Republic. Here is one excerpt:
"The debate over whether America is a fully sovereign nation, or merely a confederation of sovereign states allied for the purposes of common defense and foreign policy, did not begin with the Civil War, or, for that matter, with the quixotic challenge to American unity mounted by paleo-libertarians and neo-Confederates in more recent years, but goes back to the earliest years under the Constitution. As Henry Adams writes in his massive History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson, in the period preceding the e******n of Jefferson in 1800, Americans, particularly in the South and New England, were convulsed over the question “whether the nature of the United States was single or multiple, whether they were a nation or a league.” (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001710.html)

And then there is this:
"To quickly emphasize the importance of "We the People" in the Preamble of the Constitution, one should examine the Preamble of the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation, the Preamble bears no such phrase, and instead moves quickly into the content of the Articles with barely any such opening ideas. "We the People" is conspicuously absent from the Preamble of the Articles.

"The Constitution, on the other hand, by opening up with "We the People" immediately affirms that the Constitution is of the people, for the people, and by the people of the United States. This interpretation, which arises most strongly from the presence of "We the People" in the Preamble, effectively leads to an understanding of the Constitution as affecting the people directly and not through regulations imposed on the States. In other words, those words define that the interaction between the Constitution and the citizens of the United States is direct and immediate, meaning that the Constitution, and the government it creates, supersedes any State government.
(- See more at: http://constitution.laws.com/we-the-people#sthash.Hde1g87t.dpuf )

This is a question that is not always or easily divided between Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal. What actions in this area may appear quite liberal today, were considered conservative back then, and reversed at other times. Some may feel the secessionists in the 1860s were playing fast and loose with the Constitution, trying to rewrite it to serve their personal and political ends. Others think their interpretation about State's Right correct.


How do you see it?

skott Loc: Bama

You see it correctly. The history is clear. We were a confederation with a weak Federal government, that did not work. The founding fathers are the ones that wrote the constitution, which puts the Federal government over the state governments. We fought a second war about the same thing and s***ery. The federal government is supreme to the state governments. My state, Alabama, has not written a treaty since the 1800's.

rumitoid

Another element: does the word "people" simply mean a unity of thought and agreement, an abstract symbolic term of political persuasion, or does it mean and go to all of who we are, that a government should respect, maintain, strengthen, and enhance all of its people in order to experience the highest quality of life and liberty with the basic understanding that we united we stand and divided we fall, the weakest link our national attention and care?

For consideration: For me, the question should read, 'How are we to help others?' because helping others is a given for any person or society or our humanity is worthless. Either our government represents we the people or it does not. If it does, then the government represents the humane aspects of our humanity in helping others. We the people means all what we are as people, not just what profits or punishes, not just for protection and property.

With such an over-emphasis, as I see it, on our Rights lately, our obligations to those Rights and our fellow citizens is rarely discussed. The argument remains one-sided from both sides in discussing (fighting over) 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights. From my perspective (which I am not saying is THE perspective), to say one nation under God and for many to see ourselves as his image and likeness, love, mercy, and forgiveness are as much part of America as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Giving to "the least of these" is in the character of we the people and thus is to be part of our government. How best to do this is the only question and we never seem to give that enough thought or attention.

Such programs would of necessity have to be get "the least of these" back on their feet and productive again, not off of their feet and dependent. The vast majority who have received government assistance do get back on their feet and most our anxious to do so. Though our system is imperfect and needs a lot more work, such assistance, in my view, must be sacrosanct to our form of government, reflecting the heart of we the people, not just the mind and muscle.

rumitoid

I agree with you except that the Fed has sometimes broaden its prevue to either create redundancy programs, standards and initiatives over which the states had legal authority, such as the EPA, or has intruded on state ground with such agencies as the B*M.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

There are a few things here that can be committed on, but I will limit my response to just a couple. First of all, this government was dedicated to the people of this nation and was supposed to protect them at all cost from foreign invasion, since a single state cannot do it. All articles and amendments of the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land and override all state rights and laws. However, and most importantly, this Constitution list ALL the laws and powers that this federal government has. If it is not listed, then it simply does not have that power. Just because they say it does, does not make it so.

ALL laws must be written by the single authority that can make laws and that is Congress. They are the only ones that can make law, BUT, just because they make a law does not itself make it a law. It MUST be given the authority to make that law in the Constitution and if they do not have that authority, then it is not a law, but a usurpation or power granted to them.

To begin with, our rights came from God, not man. ALL of our rights came from God and man has no right to take them away. Consequently, ALL power granted to our government comes from us by way of the Constitution.

"Accordingly, WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America wherein we created the federal government.

A “federal government” is an alliance of Sovereign States associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas only.

These specifically defined areas are the “enumerated powers” WE delegated to the three branches of the national (“federal”) government.

The States and The People retained all other powers."

We had to grant the government enough power to carry out their mission and that power is enumerated in our Constitution. THEY HAVE NO OTHER POWER. WE THE PEOPLE are ALL the people that make up this country, not just a few high placed bureaucrats that have the authority of life and death over us. All of the people make a contract with this government WE created and that contract is called the Constitution. In that contract, we listed ALL the authority that this government was to have, no more.

Granted WE didn't write the Constitution, but WE authorized it by each state ratifying it or each amendment. If we ratify it, then it becomes the law of the land, otherwise it is thrown out. Each generation accepts it by not changing it, or if it is changed, then accepting it as changed.

"Our Constitution isn’t broken! Our Constitution isn’t outdated. The problem is that WE – who are “the natural guardians” of the Constitution – didn’t bother to learn it. Since we didn’t bother to learn it, we elected representatives who also hadn’t bothered to learn it. And so everyone ignores it.

And we abandoned the religious and moral foundation of our Constitution.

It is our own ignorance of our existing Constitution, and the collapse of religion and morality which have brought us to the brink of destruction.

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing”! The only Amendments we need are to repeal some of the previous Amendments we got deceived into approving.

WE THE PEOPLE need “fixing”. Restoration of our religious and moral foundation and our Constitution is the Answer to the Healing of our Land."

skott Loc: Bama

Can we fix you first?

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

I think Skott's asking, "Who wrote the few things, one 'could be committed on' here?"

skott Loc: Bama

No, i'm not agreeing with the religious arguments and the get rid of amendments argument. Which would those be by the way?
Also, I am fairly sure that by religious morals he means stuff like the death penalty. My Jesus would not agree.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

We k**l infants for being conceived.

Obama sends unmanned drones to k**l US Citizens. I think the death penalty is alive and well in the USA. Probably not what he meant by "going back to religious morality."

skott Loc: Bama

He sent a drone to k**l Al Queda members. Should Lincoln have been impeached or k**led for ordering war against Americans?

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

He was.

skott Loc: Bama

Not legally. He was assassinated.

skott Loc: Bama

Also, he was k**led for revenge and it cost the south dearly.