The Michael Brown case did contradict the constitution, because the claims to promote general welfare, establishing justice, and ensuring domestic tranquility were contradicted. It contradicts the idea of promoting general welfare, because the well being of all citizens was not occurring. Citizens in the city experienced the violence throughout the city over the controversy. Also, the well being of Brown was not followed because he died, he was violently shot and killed. Also, the well being of the police officer who shot Brown wasn't followed, because while the controversy over the motive for shooting Brown was occurring, two Ferguson police officers were shot, including the one who shot Brown. Establishing justice was contradicted, because law might have not fairly been applied to Brown. It is a law that you can't steal, which Brown did. The result was punishment, which could have been jail or other consequences but he was shot. There was controversy over if a white man committed the same crime, and if he would have been punished differently. This shows that the law punishing people who commit crimes, may not have been applied fairly and equally to Brown. Lastly, ensuring domestic tranquility was also contradicted. It was contradicted, because peace and order was defiantly not occurring during the controversy over the case. There rioting going on in the city because many people felt very strongly against the police officers for shooting Brown. The huge amount of controversy led the city farther away from peace and order, and therefore the case contradicts the constitution.