"WE THE PEOPLE"

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve.

THE PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
"We the People 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 Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[2] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever utilized it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[3] except as regards frivolous litigation.[4]

JUDICIAL RELEVANCE
The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution's meaning.[5] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[6] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques that focus on the exact text of a document[7] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, so the Preamble provides additional language against which to compare other parts of the Constitution. Balanced against these techniques are those that focus more attention on broader efforts to discern the meaning of the document from more than just the wording;[8] the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the "spirit" of the Constitution.
Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are very often interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it;[9] as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders.[10] Although revolutionary in some ways, the Constitution maintained many common law concepts (such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and sovereign immunity),[11] and courts deem that the Founders' perceptions of the legal system that the Constitution created (i.e., the interaction between what it changed and what it kept from the British legal system[12]) are uniquely important because of the authority "the People" invested them with to create it.[13] Along with evidence of the understandings of the men who debated and drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, the courts are also interested in the way that government officials have put into practice the Constitution's provisions, particularly early government officials,[14] although the courts reserve to themselves the final authority to determine the Constitution's meaning.[15] However, this focus on historical understandings of the Constitution is sometimes in tension with the changed circumstances of modern society from the late 18th century society that drafted the Constitution; courts have ruled that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of these changed circumstances.[16] All of these considerations of the political theory behind the Constitution have prompted the Supreme Court to articulate a variety of special rules of construction and principles for interpreting it.[17] For example, the Court's rendering of the purposes behind the Constitution have led it to express a preference for broad interpretations of individual freedoms.[18]

INTERPRETATION
[edit] Aspects of national sovereignty
The Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" has been interpreted over the years to make revised claims as to the nature of the governmental entity that the Constitution creates (i.e., the federal government). In contemporary international law, the world consists of sovereign states (or "sovereign nations" in modern equivalent). A state is said to be "sovereign," if any of its ruling inhabitants are the supreme authority over it; the concept is distinct from mere land-title or "ownership."[27] While each state was originally recognized as sovereign unto itself, the post-Civil War Supreme Court held that the "United States of America" consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations.[28] Although the Constitution expressly delegates to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments (such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to the federal government as the country's representative in the international community.[29]
Domestically, the federal government's sovereignty means that it may perform acts such as entering into contracts or accepting bonds, which are typical of governmental entities but not expressly provided for in the Constitution or laws.[30] Similarly, the federal government, as an attribute of sovereignty, has the power to enforce those powers that are granted to it (e.g., the power to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads"[31] includes the power to punish those who interfere with the postal system so established).[32] The Court has recognized the federal government's supreme power[33] over those limited matters[34] entrusted to it. Thus, no state may interfere with the federal government's operations as though its sovereignty is superior to the federal government's (discussed more below); for example, states may not interfere with the federal government's near absolute discretion to sell its own real property, even when that real property is located in one or another state.[35] The federal government exercises its supreme power not as a unitary entity, but instead via the three coordinate branches of the government (legislative, executive, and judicial),[36] each of which has its own prescribed powers and limitations under the Constitution.[37] In addition, the doctrine of separation of powers functions as a limitation on each branch of the federal government's exercise of sovereign power.[38]
A unique aspect of the American system of government is that, while the rest of the world views the United States as one country, domestically American constitutional law recognizes a federation of state governments separate from (and not subdivisions of) the federal government, each of which is sovereign over its own affairs.[39] Sometimes, the Supreme Court has even analogized the States to being foreign countries to each other to explain the American system of State sovereignty.[40] However, each state's sovereignty is limited by the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of both the United States as a nation and each state;[41] in the event of a conflict, a valid federal law controls.[42] As a result, although the federal government is (as discussed above) recognized as sovereign and has supreme power over those matters within its control, the American constitutional system also recognizes the concept of "State sovereignty," where certain matters are susceptible to government regulation, but only at the State and not the federal level.[43] For example, although the federal government prosecutes crimes against the United States (such as treason, or interference with the postal system), the general administration of criminal justice is reserved to the States.[44] Notwithstanding sometimes broad statements by the Supreme Court regarding the "supreme" and "exclusive" powers the State and Federal governments exercise,[45] the Supreme Court and State courts have also recognized that much of their power is held and exercised concurrently.[46]

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.[47] It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."[48] The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people,[49] 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.[50] The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States.[51] Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent states.[52] In short, although in some ways the meaning and implications of the Preamble may be 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 POPULAR NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social compact, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution. For example, if a law was enacted which violated the Constitution, not just anybody could challenge the statute's constitutionality in court; instead, only an individual who was negatively affected by the unconstitutional statute could bring such a challenge.[53] For example, a person claiming certain benefits that are created by a statute cannot then challenge, on constitutional grounds, the administrative mechanism that awards them.[54] These same principles apply to corporate entities,[55] and can implicate the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.[56]
In this same vein, courts will not answer hypothetical questions about the constitutionality of a statute.[57] The judiciary does not have the authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws solely because they are unconstitutional, but may declare a law unconstitutional if its operation would injure a person's interests.[58] For example, creditors who lose some measure of what they are owed when a bankrupt’s debts are discharged cannot claim injury, because Congress’ power to enact bankruptcy laws is also in the Constitution and inherent in it is the ability to declare certain debts valueless.[59] Similarly, while a person may not generally challenge as unconstitutional a law that they are not accused of violating,[60] once charged, a person may challenge the law's validity, even if the challenge is unrelated to the circumstances of the crime.[61]

WHERE THE CONSTITUTION IS LEGALLY EFFECTIVE
The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America.[62] For example, in Casement v. Squier,[63] a serviceman in China during World War II was convicted of murder in the United States Court for China. After being sent to prison in the State of Washington, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the local federal court, claiming he had been unconstitutionally put on trial without a jury.[64] The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.[65]
Since the Preamble declares the Constitution to have been created by the "People of the United States", "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union."[66] The following examples help demonstrate the meaning of this distinction:[67]
· Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979): the Supreme Court ruled that the substance of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures was held to apply in full force to Puerto Rico.
· Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U.S. 139 (1913): the Fifth Amendment's requirement that "no person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law" was held, by the Supreme Court, to apply in Puerto Rico, even though it was not a State and thus not "part" of the United States.
· De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901): the Supreme Court ruled that a customs collector could not, under a statute providing for taxes on imported goods, collect taxes on goods coming from Puerto Rico after it had been ceded to the United States from Spain, reasoning that although it was not a State, it was under the jurisdiction of U.S. sovereignty, and thus the goods were not being imported from a foreign country. However, in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), the Court held that the Congress could constitutionally enact a statute taxing goods sent from Puerto Rico to ports in the United States differently from other commerce, in spite of the constitutional requirement that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,"[68] on the theory that although Puerto Rico could not be treated as a foreign country, it did not count as part of the "United States" and thus was not guaranteed "uniform" tax treatment by that clause of the Constitution. This was not the only constitutional clause held not to apply in Puerto Rico: later, a lower court went on to hold that goods brought from Puerto Rico into New York before the enactment of the tax statute held constitutional in Downes, could retroactively have the taxes applied to them notwithstanding the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws, even if at the time they were brought into the United States no tax could be applied to the goods because Puerto Rico was not a foreign country.[69]
· Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890): the Supreme Court held that a certain treaty between the United States and France which was applicable in "the States of the Union" was also applicable in the District of Columbia, even though it is not part of or a member of the Union (i.e., it is not a State and therefore not one of the "United 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.[70] 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.[71] 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.[72] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[73] dissolution of the Union,[74] or secession from it,[75] are not contemplated by the Constitution.