On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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.
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
YES!
It’s a tough call, the founders had different intents lol. I’d choose Jefferson’s intent and interpret it that way.
We absolutely should strictly interpret the principles of the Constitution. It is timeless. There is nothing in it that could not be wisely applied today – and that would not make for a better life. It is not a living document. If people begin “intepreting it for the times”, then it will eventually disappear and the foundation of a free, liberal society will be a thing of the past. It was a good and sound way to live then, and it has not changed.
Indeed, we should, to eliminate the radical, agenda driven interpretations, of these Leftist misfits.
founder’s intent because then we can start to go back to basics
We should certainly interpret the Constitution more strictly than what has been done in the last 40 years or so, if not abide by strictly interpreting it. Seems like the further the country gets away from the basics the deeper the quick sand gets. So, I’d say, yes, don’t let any lawyers anywhere near the Constitution, they’ll screw it up everytime.
STRICT ADHERENCE… We are not a country of “play as you go, we are one of strict doctrine meant to be applied by common guidelines written to lead our future>” Can WE, men of G-d say, I don’t like chapter one of Psalms, so I’ll rewrite it the way I want it to be followed!
Its easy. Read the arguements they had then and you will see they are the same arguments we have now.
I think strict adherence based on the Founders’ intent is a good way to go too — certainly we didn’t thrive for 200+ years under the rule of this document for no reason…
As Danny said in the initial post, the founders were split on how they saw the constitution. I think the best way to look at the constitution is textually and if that fails in an understanding, then to attempt to determine the meaning based on the best possible understanding of original intent. The constitution is most certainly NOT a “living document”. Down that path leads whatever meaning the government decides.
I believe that the political and moral context of the time is as applicable today as it was then and that there is no need to turn the clear intent of the founders into shades of grey.
“…instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one …” Determining the “probable one” will require much more reading of letters, federalist papers, journals, diaries and other written sources which capture the over-all thinking and spirit of those who wrote or contributed to writing the original document(s). For those who suggest modifying the original document(s) to conform to current and modern thinking, we must ask ….”whose thinking may be or ought to be” included. How much alteration would be too much, how much too little. Any modification which redirects the original intent, purpose and goals of the original will have the effect of …”invented against it”…and could well guide away from those intentions and goals, making it an entirely different document with some potentially adverse effects on Liberty and the freedoms we enjoy yet today…but for how long? eh, revisionist?
as new members of congress and new judges are raising their hands to be sworn in, this should be being tattooed on their backsides. later, when they are tempted to bend over, Jeffersons words would be visible to all…..
It absolutely applies. Today’s fast paced life and political chicanery does not change the fact , we the people are still blessed by our maker and confirmed by our founders with basic human rights.
When it becomes ‘subject to intrpretation’, we then become subjects to the one interpreting.
John, when you undertake that study you will find that the Founders were, even with more than 2 chnturies of linguistic drift, remarkably precise in their chioce of words. So much so that a straight forward reading of the Constitution, without resorting to any “interpretation” whatsoever, is still the closest to the original intent of the Framers.
I see both sides. There are areas that are black letter law and there is no grey to it but with the times come different problems and that we need to figure out where these problems fall into what the authors meant. Both sides try to interpret what the Founders meant
I think Damon Wells said it nicely. Bureaucracy will always interpret the Constitution to abide by its agenda verses the will of the people. We must look at it textually and most definitely in its original intent by our founding fathers.
As the Founders wrote it. Lawyers can make random words say anything….
Jefferson is asking us NOT to try to interpret “the founders’ intent”, asking us not to squeeze specific meaning applied to specific circumstances. But rather to consider the “spirit manifested in the debates”, to consider the grander or grosser ideals in context and in history. It is the debate that should be respected, not the [specific] words.
David, the Founders provided means to change the Constitution at need. The amendment process is quite clear about how and under what conditions the Constitution may be changed. Sans Constitutional amendments, we (the citizens and government of the United States) simply do not have authority or right to either ignore or “reinterpret” the meaning of the second most important foundation document of our Nation, right behind the Declaration of Independence.
@David. Well said! Wish I could double like. Let’s all remember Jefferson himself wrestled with how to apply constitutional principles to the times, e.g., the expansion of executive powers that allowed him to move ahead with the Louisiana Purchase.
The Constitution is the only legal contract the citizenry has with our government. It is the only set of rules that define the roles of the president and the legislature and restrains them. If we need to amend this contract to address more modern issues, there are legal methods for doing so. But to let presidents and legislators ignore this contract as not relevant to them, without calling for specific amendments to it, is ridiculous. That we continually allow successive administrations and Congresses to breach this contract with us, says as much about us as it says about them.
Liberals have always read into our founding documents and have tried changing the words to fit their agendas. Just look at our second amendment rights, which hang on a thread.
William. Strawman argument. The question was about how we should be talking about the Constitution. I have nothing against the amendment process as it is. Melana. You have left out the Supreme Court. The “Founding Fathers” did not consider themselves perfect or immutable. They would likely show disdain for us for considering them so.