It is often said that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its “original intent, “original understanding,” or “original meaning.” Is there any difference between these concepts? And if so, which is the proper standard?
This is an area in which there has been a great deal of confusion, largely because few constitutional writers are familiar with how 18th-century lawyers and judges construed documents.
We can begin clearing the confusion by defining the terms. The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.
The original understanding of a constitutional provision usually refers to the subjective opinion of the 1648 state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution. Principal sources are the records of the ratifying debates. For example, if Delegate X explained a provision in the document in a particular way and no one contradicted him, then (particularly if Delegate X was a proponent) you can infer that other delegates understood the provision the same way. Indirect and circumstantial evidence for original understanding include what Framers and commentators said about the provision, as well as the meaning of the words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources.
The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.
Read More at tenthamendmentcenter.com. By Rob Natelson.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
For me to read and understand what the framers ment and what they believed the Constitution to mean is very simple, I go to all 85 of the Federalist Papers written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. I do the same thing in trying to determine what the Bill of Rights are supposed to say, I go the source, I read James Madison’s Original Proposed Amendments of June 8, 1789 as he submitted to the First Session of the First Congress. I do the same in looking at the intent of the Congress regarding the 14th Amendment and the debates thereof. If everyone did this including our esteamed members of Congress, and Judicial System we would not, any of us, have a problem with understanding the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any of the other 17 Amendments ratified by Congress and the States.
This is how they absolutely deceive everyone. Most of the men that signed the constitution were NOT lawyers.
They deliberately framed the wording to be as simple as possible yet absolutely clear in meaning. READ the document. It does NOT take some self appointed EXPERT to define the meaning of every word.
My children have a basic understanding of the constitution that exceeds, apparently most of congress and the senate. They (the coruptocrats BOTH party’s) pervert every word to further their ideal of absolute power regardless of the American people. The context of the constitution is simply this
Any person with a modicum of decency AND any moral fiber can live by these SIMPLE rules.
They are NOT suggestions. They are absolute limits on government power over American citizens.
One of the chief reasons for the revolutionary war was the dictatorial removal of basic rights and liberty.
Our government has assumed the kings crown and ALL the power it had in 1775.
Think about this, we now live in a police state. Look to California, the latest madness the FDA goes knocking on peoples doors demanding they turn over their supply of fresh milk. The constitution gives absolutely NO authority to the government to tell you what you can or can not eat or drink.
The commerce clause perverted again to further their power.
article 1 section 8 clause 3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Yes this is a very open statement, yet in context with everything else in the constitution that absolutely LIMITS government in EVERY aspect, today they use is as an excuse to COMPLETELY CONTROL everything. If you doubt me do some research ANYTHING going across state lines is regulated including PRIVATELY owned and used MILK.
And of course the piece de resistance OBLUNDER care.
This monstrosity violates the ENTIRE concept of the bill of rights.
The 4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
If you don’t by what they ORDER you to they have the right to TAKE it from you.
They have the right to your medical records (unreasonable search).
The 5th amendment
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
They have the right to TAKE YOUR money without your consent to pay for their idea of healthcare.
And finally the 9th amendment specifically backs up the ENUMERATED duty’s of the federal government.
Specifically and unilaterally limiting federal power.
We now live in a police state and dictatorship.
To the the original intent of the Constitution is LIMITED government and if we all in our various states
Legalize the Constitution. What I mean is hold our representatives and ALL those who take the oath to defend and support the Constitution to their oath upon penality of 10 years hard labor and forfeiture of ALL assets to pay for their incarseration for every time they are convicted of making laws and rulings and regulations that are opposed to the original intent of the Constitution.
Think of it for a minute. A judge could be arrested an hauled before a state court a county court and tried for his crime of not following the original intent. A polititician could be put in prison for not abiding by the constitution. A local offical could face the same law.If we the PEOPLE will it so then this can be done and this bloated monster of government can be corrected to the original intent.
I agree with all of your comments and having just completed Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101 Course, I have a much deeper understanding and appreciation of our Founding Documents and Founding Fathers. They were astute philosophers of human nature and despite their best efforts to limit the corruption of human nature, WE have let them down.
As I see it, the only way to start restoring the Constitution and limited government is for the sovereign People to vote for new citizen representatives in government. Refuse to re-elect any incumbent to any elected position, and start recall procedures for any remaining Senators who are not up for re-election until 2014 or 2016. Until we can rid ourselves of these corrupt politicians, we can’t take back our country and reestablish consent of the governed.
It is vitally important that anyone we elect agrees to support the Constitution and agrees to investigate Obama’s eligibility for holding the Office of President. Without finding him an unconstitutional President, we can’t have his actions nullified. The critical component here, are the Treaties he and his complicit Senators are pushing through that will attempt to subjugate America to the UN and NWO elitists. We have one chance to save ourselves from Obama’s unconstitutional actions and we simply cannot trust the Judiciary to support the constitutional Rule of Law. (These same actions are also true for our state governments. Too many state Governors and legislators do not support the Constitution and have not upheld their Oath to support the Constitution any more than our federal legislators and judges have.) We, the sovereign People of the United States have a lot of work to do.
Although it is not a foregone conclusion that Romney will get the GOP nomination, many commenters believe they can write-in Ron Paul and give him the Presidency. Unfortunately, they have either forgotten or do not understand that the People do not elect the President. The People elect the Presidential Electors (Elector College) who cast their votes for the Presidential candidate, thereby electing the President of the United States. In past years, the Presidential Electors have been ‘chosen’ and nominated for ballot by the political parties. We must prevent that from occurring in this election, finding a way to control the nomination of independent individuals whose ONLY job is to vet and vote for the best candidate. Alan Keys completed a series of articles on the Constitution and elections last week. They are posted on his website loyaltoliberty.com–with Part III discussing Presidential Electors.