The Legal Significance of the Preamble in Contracts and Constitutional Interpretation

While preambles play a crucial role in the mental state of upcoming contracts in countries like Brazil, their legal significance in other contexts, particularly in constitutional law, has been limited. This article delves into the primary role of preambles in both contracts and constitutional interpretation, highlighting their importance despite the limitations in legal weight.

Legal Effects of the Preamble in Contracts

In countries such as Brazil, the exchange of communication arrangements preceding a contract serves as an essential part of the mental state of the future contract. This state of bona fide good faith implies that the other party may incur expenses or make preparations that may burden or lead to a certain understanding of terms and contexts. As a result, the preamble of a contract or any previous understanding between the parties may establish the context in which the contract must be interpreted.

For instance, implicit obligations or duties can arise from the preamble, along with other contextual elements such as currency to be used, language, and the venue of performance. These elements collectively contribute to the overall meaning and intent of the contract.

Role of the Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation

While the Congressional Research Service highlights the role of the Preamble in broadly embodying the American constitutional vision, its legal significance as a source of substantive power is limited. Unlike preambles in contracts, the Preamble in the context of constitutional interpretation has had a relatively minor role in legal doctrine over the years.

According to Chief Justice John Jay, while serving as a circuit judge, the Preamble to a legal document cannot be used to abrogate other text within it. Instead, introductory language can be used to resolve two competing readings of the text. Similarly, Justice Joseph Story argued in his Commentaries that the Preamble provides the ability to "expound the nature and extent and application" of the powers created by the Constitution but "never can be resorted to to enlarge the powers confided to the general government or any of its departments."

In 1908, the Supreme Court adopted Justice Story's view in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The Court held that while the Constitution's introductory paragraph "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 federal government." The Court explained that such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and those that may be implied from the expressly granted powers.

Despite the limited legal weight given to the Preamble, the Court has rarely cited it in decisions interpreting the Constitution. The Preamble remains a tool for explaining and elucidating the general purposes of the text that follows, but it is not a source of additional powers or legal obligations.

In conclusion, while preambles play a significant role in establishing the context and intent of contracts, their legal significance in constitutional interpretation remains minimal. Understanding the difference in their roles is crucial for both legal practitioners and scholars.