We the People

What does "We the People" mean? To whom does it refer?

One historico-cynical interpretation is that "We the People" refers to that group of people who actually wrote the Constitution and the other men of their class -- in other words, white, land-owning, free males, most likely of English descent.

But the Constitution itself does little to suggest that this is whom "We the People" means. Its language is general enough, or ambiguous enough, that the phrase suggests the broader class of people encompassed by the word citizens. Under this interpretation, one did not have to be a member of the gentry, that class to which most of the members of the Constitution belonged.

An even more restrictive interpretation, with even more interesting results is the interpretation that "We the People" meant only the people who signed the Constitution.

If this was truly the case, then when the last signer of the Constitution died, the Constitution itself lost its significance, and therefore, there was no longer a United States of America. This would mean that whatever government we now have is completely illegitimate. We have been traveling along for the last 200 year or so on a fiction, since the country had ceased to exist upon the death of the last signator.

And if this is the case, then whatever George Bush might wish to do does not exist under any law and is therefore neither "legal" or "illegal".

Reinhold Neibhur

Reinhold Neibhur wrote, "Open-mindedness ... " is not "a virtue of people who don't believe anything. It is a virtue of people who know. . .that their beliefs are not absolutely true."

Open-mindedness is not for the weak or insecure. It is not for those who are afraid of freedom, their own and that of others'.

When Whittaker Chambers, "the communist turned conservative whose 1952 conversion tale, "Witness," strongly influenced the early cold-war right, said Americans would suffer defeat after defeat until their "faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as Communism's faith in Man."" (NY Times, 4/29/06 on-line) he revealed his and the conservatives' fear of freedom. Was his word choice inadvertant when he said that God "enjoins" freedom? Did he really mean to say that God "orders" or "commands" us to be free? [enjoin: v 1: issue an injunction 2: give instructions to or direct somebody to do something with authority; ] If so, then he was only replacing one set of demagogues for another. As the ideological struggle has played out, it appears that Whittaker's choice of words was not a mistake. It may not be God, but God's self-appointed spokesmen who enjoin us, but such injunctions are always paradoxical commands which require us to obey them in order to be free.

Open-mindedness is not the willingness to believe or accept anything, Open-mindedness requires a dedication to the truth and an objective reality. Open-mindedness requires that one consider everything, but not that one believe everything. Being open-minded does not mean that one has no commitment to social or moral priciples; one can still believe in justice and the good. But being open-minded means that commitment to these principles is guided by a commitment to truth.

If one's greed or fear drives one to acts of injustice, then a commitment to truth means that one must acknowledge those acts for what they are. It is immoral to use labels of "justice" or "the good" or "freedom" to rename these acts. To enslave people "for their own good" or invade a country without provocation as "just" distorts reality so that the meaning of :"justice" and "the good" becomes less certain. Self-serving lies are what really erodes moal values.