The Constitution of the United States, a document of approximately 4,500 words, was ratified by “We the People” in 1788. This concise and clear document established the framework for our federal government and delineated the powers granted to it. However, the current federal government often operates under an annotated version of the Constitution, which spans roughly 3,000 pages. This annotated version, incorporating over 240 years of court cases, represents a substantial departure from the original text. This article argues that the existence and reliance on the Annotated Constitution is itself unconstitutional, as it fundamentally alters the nature and scope of the document originally ratified by the people.
The framers of the Constitution designed a document that was intended to be easily understood by the average citizen. Its brevity and clarity were meant to ensure that the limits of governmental power were clear and transparent. James Madison, in Federalist No. 62, emphasized the importance of laws being comprehensible to those who are governed by them:
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
The Constitution’s primary function was to outline the powers of the federal government, establishing a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. It enumerated specific powers granted to Congress, the President, and the Judiciary, leaving all other powers to the states or the people, as stated in the Tenth Amendment.
The Annotated Constitution: A Game of Telephone
The Annotated Constitution includes extensive commentary and interpretations based on centuries of court decisions. While these annotations provide context and clarification for legal professionals, they have expanded the Constitution into a complex and often contradictory document. This expansion is akin to a centuries-long game of telephone, where the original message becomes distorted and altered with each retelling.
Thomas Jefferson warned against the dangers of judicial overreach and the potential for the judiciary to transform the Constitution through interpretation. In a letter to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819, Jefferson wrote:
“The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
The annotated version, shaped by judicial interpretation, reflects Jefferson’s concerns, as it has grown far beyond the original text and intent.
The Unconstitutionality of the Annotated Constitution
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, emphasized the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution but also warned that it must not overstep its bounds:
“The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”
The annotated version represents an exercise of will over judgment, as it allows the judiciary to effectively rewrite the Constitution through interpretation.
The Federal Government’s Adherence to a Different Constitution
It is crucial to recognize that the federal government does adhere to a constitution—just not the one ratified by “We the People.” The annotated version, which guides much of the federal government’s operations today, is a constitution that has been modified and expanded by judicial decisions and interpretations over the centuries. This version bears little resemblance to the original document that was intended to limit governmental power and protect individual liberties.
James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, emphasized that the powers of the federal government should be “few and defined.” However, the annotated version of the Constitution has allowed for a significant expansion of federal power, often at the expense of state sovereignty and individual rights. The result is a federal government that operates under a vastly different set of principles than those enshrined in the original Constitution.
Returning to the Original Intent
To restore the Constitution to its original intent, we must recognize that the annotated version is not the document ratified by “We the People.” The framers intended for the Constitution to be a living document, but one that could only be changed through the amendment process outlined in Article V. This process requires a high level of consensus, ensuring that any changes reflect the will of the people.
James Madison, in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights, emphasized the importance of the amendment process as a means of refining the Constitution:
“If they be found not to correspond with the sense of the great body of the people, amendments can be made…and in this way the Constitution will acquire more strength.”
The annotated version, however, bypasses this process, allowing changes to be made without the broad consensus required by Article V.
Conclusion
The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal government, ensuring that it remains accountable to the people. The annotated version, by incorporating centuries of court cases and interpretations, expands the scope of the federal government far beyond what was intended by the framers. This expansion is unconstitutional, as it undermines the principles of limited government and the separation of powers.
To return to a constitutional state, we must reject the annotated version and adhere to the original text of the Constitution. This adherence requires a commitment to the amendment process for any necessary changes, ensuring that the Constitution remains a document of the people, by the people, and for the people. By doing so, we can preserve the integrity of the Constitution and the liberty it was designed to protect.
The annotated Constitution represents a deviation from the simplicity and clarity intended by the framers. Its existence and use challenge the very principles of limited government and the separation of powers. By returning to the original text and utilizing the amendment process for necessary changes, we can honor the vision of the framers and ensure that our government remains accountable to the people.
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