Preamble to the United States Constitution: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 13 March 2008

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles which the Constitution itself was meant to serve. It expresses in general terms the intentions of the Constitution's authors, and is sometimes referred to by courts as evidence of what the Founders thought the Constitution meant and what it hoped to achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

Text

<font-size 19%>We the People</font-size> of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Meaning and application

The U.S. Constitution's Preamble does not assign any powers to the federal government^[2] or provide specific limitations on government action. Due to this, it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the dispositive factor in deciding a case.^[3] However, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of various other parts of the Constitution.

Example

An example of the way the courts make use of the Preamble is in Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids, 257 F. Supp. 564 (W.D. Mich. 1966). Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted," and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use." In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use," the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers."^[4] "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ‘* * * promote the general Welfare.’"^[5]

Interpretation

"People of the United States"

The phrase "People of the United States" has sometimes been understood to mean "citizens." This approach reasons that, if the political community speaking for itself in the Preamble ("We the People") includes only citizens, by negative implication it specifically excludes non-citizens in some fashion.^[6] It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."^[7] The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people,^[8] as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect "the people" directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units.^[9] Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent States.^[10] The Preamble has also been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America.^[11] In short, although in some ways the meaning and implications of the Preamble are contested, at the least it can be said that the Preamble demonstrates that the federal government of the United States was not created as an agreement between or coalition of the States. Instead, it was the product of "the People" with the power to govern the People directly, unlike the government under the Articles of Confederation, which only governed the People indirectly through rules imposed on the States.

"to form a more perfect Union"

The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.^[12] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.^[13] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.^[14] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that dissolution of the Union^[15] or secession from it^[16] is not contemplated by the Constitution.

Notes

^ In the hand-written engrossed copy of the Constitution maintained in the National Archives, the (British) spelling "defence" is used in the preamble (See the National Archives transcription and the Archives' image of the engrossed document).
^ See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co., 8 F. Supp. 535, 539 (W.D. Okla. 1934) (citing Jacobson for the proposition that the Preamble's reference to the "general welfare" confers no substantive powers on Congress); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (C.C.W.D. Mo. 1898) (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)) ("The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.").
^ See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 ("I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.").
^ Ellis, 257 F. Supp. at 527.
^ Id. at 574 (emphasis added).
^ See, e.g., Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 410–11 (1857) ("The brief preamble sets forth by whom [the Constitution] was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that [the Constitution] [was] formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary. But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.") (emphasis added). But see id. at 581–82 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (arguing that "the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth" and that the "necessary conclusion is, that those persons born within the several States, who, by force of their respective Constitutions and laws, are citizens of the State, are thereby citizens of the United States"). Scott was superseded by U.S. CONST. amend. XIII and U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
^ Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 22 (using this particular phrasing).
^ Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) ("Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.") (emphasis added).
^ Cf. League v. De Young, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 185, 203 (1851) ("The Constitution of the United States was made by, and for the protection of, the people of the United States."); Barron v. Mayor of Balt., 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247 (1833) ("The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. . . . The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and . . . necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument."). While the Supreme Court did not specifically mention the Preamble in these cases, it seems apparent that it was expounding on the implications of what it understood reference to "the People" in the Preamble to mean.
^ See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324–25 (1816) ("The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but . . . , as the preamble of the constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.' . . . The constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions . . . ."); Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793) (Jay, C.J.) ("[I]n establishing [the Constitution], the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.‘ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner."); cf. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 402–03 (1819) (rejecting a construction of the Constitution that would interpret it "not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government . . . are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion;" instead, "the [Constitution] was submitted to the people. They acted upon it . . . by assembling in convention. . . . [It] d[id] not, on . . . account [of the ratifying conventions assembling in each state], cease to be the [action] of the people themselves, or become [an action] of the state governments."). Note that Chisholm was an extremely controversial decision, and was quickly superseded by U.S. CONST. amend. XI, as was recognized in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798); additionally, the Supreme Court has subsequently recognized that the case was wrongly-decided, see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 12 (1890) ("[T]he highest authority of this country [(i.e., the people)] was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court in the decision of the case of Chisholm v. Georgia; and this fact lends additional interest to the able opinion of Mr. Justice IREDELL on that occasion.").
^ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901) ("The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states."); Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) ("By the constitution a government is ordained and established ‘for the United States of America,’ and not for countries outside of their limits. The guaranties it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused, apply only to citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad.").
^ See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549–50 (1876) ("The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States . . . ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law . . . .") (emphasis added); Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 724–25 (1869) ("[The Union, which had existed since colonial times,] received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'"), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885); Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 332 ("The constitution was for a new government, organized with new substantive powers, and not a mere supplementary charter to a government already existing.").
^ See Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869) ("The people, through [the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."); cf. Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 332 ("The confederation was a compact between states; and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the national government. The constitution was an act of the people of the United States to supercede the confederation, and not to be ingrafted on it, as a stock through which it was to receive life and nourishment.").
^ Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 554–55 (1871) ("The Constitution of the United States established a government, and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government."), abrogated on other grounds by Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), as recognized in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
^ White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1872) ("[The Constitution] assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so.")
^ Texas, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 725–26 ("[W]hen the[] Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.").

External links

[1] In the hand-written engrossed copy of the Constitution maintained in the National Archives, the (British) spelling "defence" is used in the preamble (See the National Archives transcription and the Archives' image of the engrossed document).

[2] See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co., 8 F. Supp. 535, 539 (W.D. Okla. 1934) (citing Jacobson for the proposition that the Preamble's reference to the "general welfare" confers no substantive powers on Congress); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (C.C.W.D. Mo. 1898) (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)) ("The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.").

[3] See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 ("I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.").

[4] Ellis, 257 F. Supp. at 527.

[5] Id. at 574 (emphasis added).

[6] See, e.g., Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 410–11 (1857) ("The brief preamble sets forth by whom [the Constitution] was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that [the Constitution] [was] formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary. But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.") (emphasis added). But see id. at 581–82 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (arguing that "the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth" and that the "necessary conclusion is, that those persons born within the several States, who, by force of their respective Constitutions and laws, are citizens of the State, are thereby citizens of the United States"). Scott was superseded by U.S. CONST. amend. XIII and U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.

[7] Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 22 (using this particular phrasing).

[8] Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) ("Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.") (emphasis added).

[9] Cf. League v. De Young, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 185, 203 (1851) ("The Constitution of the United States was made by, and for the protection of, the people of the United States."); Barron v. Mayor of Balt., 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247 (1833) ("The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. . . . The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and . . . necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument."). While the Supreme Court did not specifically mention the Preamble in these cases, it seems apparent that it was expounding on the implications of what it understood reference to "the People" in the Preamble to mean.

[10] See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324–25 (1816) ("The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but . . . , as the preamble of the constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.' . . . The constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions . . . ."); Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793) (Jay, C.J.) ("[I]n establishing [the Constitution], the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.‘ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner."); cf. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 402–03 (1819) (rejecting a construction of the Constitution that would interpret it "not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government . . . are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion;" instead, "the [Constitution] was submitted to the people. They acted upon it . . . by assembling in convention. . . . [It] d[id] not, on . . . account [of the ratifying conventions assembling in each state], cease to be the [action] of the people themselves, or become [an action] of the state governments."). Note that Chisholm was an extremely controversial decision, and was quickly superseded by U.S. CONST. amend. XI, as was recognized in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798); additionally, the Supreme Court has subsequently recognized that the case was wrongly-decided, see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 12 (1890) ("[T]he highest authority of this country [(i.e., the people)] was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court in the decision of the case of Chisholm v. Georgia; and this fact lends additional interest to the able opinion of Mr. Justice IREDELL on that occasion.").

[11] Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901) ("The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states."); Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) ("By the constitution a government is ordained and established ‘for the United States of America,’ and not for countries outside of their limits. The guaranties it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused, apply only to citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad.").

[12] See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549–50 (1876) ("The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States . . . ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law . . . .") (emphasis added); Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 724–25 (1869) ("[The Union, which had existed since colonial times,] received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'"), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885); Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 332 ("The constitution was for a new government, organized with new substantive powers, and not a mere supplementary charter to a government already existing.").

[13] See Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869) ("The people, through [the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."); cf. Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 332 ("The confederation was a compact between states; and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the national government. The constitution was an act of the people of the United States to supercede the confederation, and not to be ingrafted on it, as a stock through which it was to receive life and nourishment.").

[14] Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 554–55 (1871) ("The Constitution of the United States established a government, and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government."), abrogated on other grounds by Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), as recognized in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).

[15] White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1872) ("[The Constitution] assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so.")

[16] Texas, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 725–26 ("[W]hen the[] Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.").

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == Meaning and application ==
-The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution does not assign any powers to the federal government<ref>''See [[Jacobson v. Massachusetts]]'', 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); ''United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.'', 8 F. Supp. 535, 539 (W.D. Okla. 1934) (citing ''Jacobson'' for the proposition that the Preamble's reference to the "general welfare" confers no substantive powers on Congress); ''see also United States v. Boyer'', 85 F. 425, 430–31 (C.C.W.D. Mo. 1898) (quoting 1 J<small>OSEPH</small> S<small>TORY</small>, C<small>OMMENTARIES</small> <small>ON</small> <small>THE</small> C<small>ONSTITUTION</small> <small>OF</small> <small>THE</small> U<small>NITED</small> S<small>TATES</small> § 462 (1833)) ("The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.").</ref> or provide specific limitations on government action. Due to this, it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the dispositive factor in deciding a case.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''Boyer'', 85 F. at 430 ("I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.").</ref> However, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of various other parts of the Constitution.
+The U.S. Constitution's Preamble does not assign any powers to the federal government<ref>''See [[Jacobson v. Massachusetts]]'', 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); ''United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.'', 8 F. Supp. 535, 539 (W.D. Okla. 1934) (citing ''Jacobson'' for the proposition that the Preamble's reference to the "general welfare" confers no substantive powers on Congress); ''see also United States v. Boyer'', 85 F. 425, 430–31 (C.C.W.D. Mo. 1898) (quoting 1 J<small>OSEPH</small> S<small>TORY</small>, C<small>OMMENTARIES</small> <small>ON</small> <small>THE</small> C<small>ONSTITUTION</small> <small>OF</small> <small>THE</small> U<small>NITED</small> S<small>TATES</small> § 462 (1833)) ("The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.").</ref> or provide specific limitations on government action. Due to this, it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the dispositive factor in deciding a case.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''Boyer'', 85 F. at 430 ("I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.").</ref> However, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of various other parts of the Constitution.
 ===Example===