These are vague terms deliberately...most people, when confronted with the Constitution, would call it a Communist document...especially based on the Preamble.
Besides, the Preamble was political posturing. The "spirit" that you have missed resides in the laws themselves, virtually all of which are geared toward individual rights. Very few (assembly, for example) are geared toward groups or social structures. Only recently have we started to add amendments geared toward groups (Civil Rights).
Personally, I think it's a mistake, but I understand the reasoning behind the Civil Rights amendment and it is hard to argue against it because it is SUCH an emotional issue. I feel that there were better methods of dealing with the issue.
That said, it is important to realize that the general welfare is nothing more than the aggregate of many individual welfares, and if one is diminished, what good has been achieved? I'd say little.
I don't believe that Spock's well received line "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or one" is acceptable UNLESS it is put within its context - it is an individual choice to believe that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one. That choice to accept it, however, should NEVER be geared to diminishing the good of the few of the one - yet, time and again, it is. |
