Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

Defer to the Preamble

Defer to the Preamble
Getty Images
Leland R. Beaumont
By Leland R. BeaumontJul 12, 2023
Leland R. Beaumont
Leland R. Beaumont is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
See More Writings by author

Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.

The many split decisions by the U.S. Supreme court justices demonstrate the ambiguity inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers made their intentions clear in the P reamble to the Constitution where they say:

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, 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.

This Preamble makes it clear the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to “…promote the general Welfare …” of the people.

Compare the clarity of the Preamble to the dangerously ambiguous language of the Second Amendment. Ratified on December 15, 1791, it states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

If one adopts an originalist view of the Constitution, which asserts that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding, then the Second Amendment means that if you are a member of a state militia and that militia is well regulated, you are free to carry your musket.

However, almost 250 years later in the era of high powered assault weapons interpretations of the Second Amendment now allow the purchase and open carry of assault type weapons, such as the AR-15-style rifle. This weapon has been prominent in mass shootings in the United States.

Fortunately, the clarity of the Preamble can help us resolve the ambiguity of the Second Amendment.

Knowing the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to “…promote the general Welfare …” of the people we should ask ourselves if allowing purchase and use of AR-15-style rifles promotes the general welfare of the people.

This question can be answered empirically, for example by comparing the welfare of those killed and injured by AR-15 style rifles to the various benefits enjoyed by their owners. This information should be used by justices to form their opinions as they interpret the wishes of the Founding Fathers.

Promoting general welfare means that the government should see to it that the citizens of our country enjoy good fortune, health, and happiness to the benefit of as many people as possible, not just a few. By paying close attention to the preamble of the Constitution today’s Supreme Court will do a better job of fulfilling the wishes of our Founding Fathers.


Latest news

Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​
Ethics & Leadership

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? How Trump Is Destroying America's Soul

US Flag
Bridging & Common Ground

This Country ’Tis of Thee Calls America to Unite Again

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.
Ethics & Leadership

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026