In an age where the meaning of words and concepts can shift as rapidly as the tide, interpreting the United States Constitution poses a unique challenge. This revered document, the foundation of American law and governance, stands as a testament to the vision and wisdom of the Founding Fathers. There is a growing debate over how the Constitution should be interpreted. Should it be seen as a living document that evolves with society, or should its interpretation be rooted in the original intent of its framers and the understanding of the public at the time of its ratification? As a constitutional originalist, I assert that there are only two legitimate ways to interpret the Constitution: through the meaning intended by the authors and signers, or through the understanding of the public at the time of ratification.
The doctrine of original intent focuses on what the drafters of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. The Framers, including luminaries such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, designed the Constitution to create a federal government with limited and enumerated powers. This intent is clearly reflected in the Federalist Papers, where Madison and Hamilton, in particular, articulated their vision for a republic governed by the rule of law and not by the whims of men.
James Madison, in Federalist No. 45, stated,
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
This clear delineation of power underscores the Framers’ intention to establish a government constrained by the specific powers granted to it by the Constitution.
To diverge from this original intent is to risk unraveling the careful balance that the Framers sought to achieve. It is akin to remodeling a house without regard to the original blueprints; the result is a structure that may be fundamentally unsound.
Public Understanding: The Context of Ratification
The second legitimate way to interpret the Constitution is through the understanding of the public at the time of its ratification. This approach is often referred to as original public meaning. It focuses on how the text of the Constitution was understood by the people who consented to be governed by it.
At the time of ratification, the Constitution was extensively debated in state conventions and in public discourse. The Federalist Papers, written to persuade the public and the states to adopt the new Constitution, provide a rich source of insight into how the document was understood. The Anti-Federalist Papers, though often opposing the Constitution’s adoption, similarly offer valuable perspectives on the public’s understanding.
For instance, the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was understood by the public at the time to ensure that individuals could defend themselves and their liberties against tyranny. This interpretation was rooted in the lived experiences of the people who had just fought a war of independence. The contemporary debates on gun control often ignore this historical context, leading to interpretations that may stray far from the original public understanding.
The Amendment Process: A Means for Change
The Constitution was not meant to progress with time through judicial reinterpretation. Instead, the Framers included a clear and deliberate process for amendments. Article V of the Constitution outlines two ways to propose amendments: either by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Regardless of the method of proposal, any amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states, ensuring that any changes reflect a broad consensus.
This process is deliberately rigorous. An amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This high threshold ensures that only changes with widespread support become part of the Constitution, preserving the stability and integrity of the document.
The amendment process underscores the Framers’ belief that the Constitution should be a stable foundation, not subject to the shifting sands of contemporary opinion. If societal values evolve to the point where a constitutional change is necessary, the amendment process provides a legitimate means to achieve this. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, were both products of this rigorous process.
The Danger of Modern Meanings
Words change meaning over time, and relying on modern interpretations can significantly alter both the intent and common understanding of the Constitution. This shift can lead to judicial activism, where judges impose their own views rather than adhering to the text and original meaning of the Constitution. This undermines the rule of law and the principle of a government of laws, not of men.
For instance, the term “commerce” in the Commerce Clause was understood at the time of the Constitution’s drafting to mean trade and exchange between states. Over time, some have expanded this definition to include virtually any economic activity, vastly increasing the power of the federal government in ways the Framers did not intend. This broad interpretation can lead to an erosion of the states’ rights and individual liberties that the Constitution was designed to protect. (See a companion article about changing meanings on Substack)
Fidelity to Original Meaning
Interpreting the Constitution through the lens of original intent and public understanding at the time of ratification is not merely an academic exercise. It is a vital safeguard against the arbitrary expansion of governmental power and the erosion of individual liberties. The Framers’ vision and the public’s understanding provide a stable and principled foundation for governance, one that respects the deliberate structure of the Constitution and the amendment process designed to adapt to changing times.
As Americans, it is our duty to uphold the Constitution as it was intended, ensuring that its principles of limited government, separation of powers, and individual liberty continue to guide our nation. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
“On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
In adhering to this approach, we honor the wisdom of the Framers and ensure that the Constitution remains a steadfast guardian of our freedoms.
Peter Serefine is a Patriot Academy Constitution Coach, Instructor for Institute on the Constitution, Author, Navy Veteran, and PA State Constable
Homepage: https://www.liberty-lighthouse.com
Follow Peter: Substack – Facebook – YouTube – Twitter – Truth Social – Frank Social
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN.
If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us
Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN