For instance, in the U.S., prosecution while promising the blessings of liberty constitutionally should determine rights through a precedence of innocence rather than protected classes, plea deals, sworn testimony, guilt by association, and closed source licensures in the exclusionary U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Further, take political slogans for example the right to try and exclusion, or the stove bans for if the consumer cannot build it, you must ban it. Are they valid in existing commercial, trade, or justice department law?

  • 3
    Please expand on just what you mean by "hearsay of riots". What more exactly is the situation you have in mind. Jul 14, 2022 at 1:41
  • Earlier you said the congress doesn’t handle domestic violence except for riots and invasion, and the only other thing I know congress does is licensure for drugs. Pretext for my policy suggestion. Jul 14, 2022 at 1:58
  • 8
    I am honestly not sure what you’re even trying to ask. The words you chose don’t make sense in that order. Is English your native language? If not, it might help if you posted a comment with the question in your native language in case someone else here speaks that language.
    – cpast
    Jul 14, 2022 at 2:01
  • 5
    If a question is not clear to others, it generally needs to be made clear. If on;y one person does not understand, perhaps the issue is with that person. If several regular posters say the question is not clear, it is wise to consider how to edit the question to make it clear. Jul 14, 2022 at 3:30
  • 3
    We are not professionals just people who try to help people understand issues in the law. Jul 14, 2022 at 4:13

1 Answer 1


Generally speaking the "blessings of liberty" phrase from the preamble to the US Constitution is not relied on for anything. It does not grant additional power to Congress or the Federal government as a whole, neither does it restrict the Federal government beyond the restrictions already included in the body of the Constitution.

Congress often accepts hearsay when it takes testimony before a committee. Such testimony need not comply with the rules of evidence that apply in court.

I am not clear what you mean by "to pretext privacy and the right to try", please clarify this. I am not aware of any "right to try" under the Federal or State governments. The word "pretext" is not usually used as a verb in this way.


The link on "right to try" goes to a Quora question about laws passed by Congress later being held to be unconstitutional. That does happen. but I have never herd it called "the right to try". The link on "pretext" goes to a security.se question about a "convict internet". I don't see what that has to to with the preamble to the Constitution.

2nd Edit

The "blessings of liberty" phrase from the preamble has nothing to do with laws against discrimination, neither authorizing nor restricting such laws.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .