The Source of An Original Interpretation

Image result for originalism Stepping aside from the Supreme Court: whether it intends to eliminate all restrictions on campaign finance under the guise of Freedom of Speech (or has only done so unintentionally), these following articles examine the foundation of Neil Gorsuch's political philosophy. Like the late Antonin Scalia, Justice Gorsuch ascribes to Originalism. And, though neither you nor I am a professor of law (and if you are I offer an apology), it is not absurd to contesting the validity of this ideology.

Before one can furnish Originalism's inadequacies, a brief history is here provided. Though historians will quibble about the initial inventor, it seems fair to give credit to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who in 1985, devised and developed in the idea in a collection of speeches. Though The Heritage Foundation (an organization funded by the Koch bothers) will declare to visitors of its website, that “Originalism ... is today the dominant theory of constitutional interpretation,” consider that only one, maybe two Originalists judge from the bench of the Supreme Court. Though a minority, there are branches of Originalism: most crucially textualists and intentionalists. Both believe the meaning of the Constitution is fixed and immutable, but their source of understanding differs. Textualists believe the Constitution must be read as an average person, living during the year of Constitutional Convention, would have understood the literal meaning. Intentionalists believe the meaning of the Constitution should be based on what the writers intended.

There are simple flaws associated with either position. Obviously, Textualists don't mean the average person. They mean a well educated lawyer. Just as the Catholic Church needs priests to explain the Bible to the layperson, Textualists need lawyers to justify their interpretation of the Constitution. And this is fine, anyone without the proper historical context of the processes would fail to understand the Constitution: its clearly not just the words written on the page, but the intent.

But Intentionalists can't escape a simple logical difficulty either. It wasn't just one person who wrote the Constitution. It wouldn't even be fair to limit the credit to the members of Constitutional Convention. Persons not at the convention, influence it's theoretical existence by the practical policies in the states, and from across the globe with their letters. And the amendments have irrevocably marred any attempt to pinpoint an individual because each was born of a multitude of voices crying out for change.

But if one were desperate to seek out (and this is for the sake of argument, so we'll have the opportunity to discuss some of the supposed results of Originalism later) a source, then let's pursue this quixotic quest. With the sharp gaze of a bald eagle, seek those who desired the institution of the Constitution, and who shaped it from the earliest date. There are two politicians who can not hide from the searching eye, and well respected already in 1786, this must be the beginning.

The Annapolis Convention was convened by nine of the thirteen states to address trade barriers between the members, now joined in the Articles of Confederation. But due to weather and the common delays of travel, only delegates from five states arrived in time. They titled the event, “Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government,” clearly expressing the purpose of their assembly. Over four days, Eleven delegates drafted, proposed, and unanimously recommended the Confederation Congress approve and convene a broader convention, imbued with increased power for altering the Articles. Of those eleven, seven would meet again at the Philadelphia Convention (later known as the Constitutional Convention): Richard Bassett, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, William Houston, James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and George Read. All but one of these men would sign the Constitution.

The Convention of 1787 was significantly expanded in scope, but still limited in intent to suggest amendments to the Articles to stabilize the issues afflicting it. Seventy delegates were invited, fifty-five attended, and thirty-nine found the final document worthy of the signature (while thirteen left early, and three remained to declare their opposition).

It must always be remembered: the Philadelphia Convention did not have the authority to author the document, and set out to approve it as they did. They were not authorized to design a new constitution, they were supposed to design an amendment or two. According to the Articles of Confederation, any amendment to the Articles required a unanimous approval of the states. But The Constitution's Article VII illegitimately overrode the Articles, declaring the Constitution to be in effect with only the approval of nine states. The paper and the method by which it came to be enforced were illegal, so the idea of infusing it with some mystical aura of lawfulness and infallibility, and the ability to know what its designers thought it meant is an egotistical insanity. But since we are already engage on this fool's errand, let us continue.

Searching for the creators, there are two people who had a larger part in the Constitution's design and construction than any others. And after their time at the Annapolis Convention, they were invited to Philadelphia. Continuing in the tradition of the Annapolis Convention, weather and common travel delayed the arrival of state delegations. The Virginia delegation arrived first, and while they waited, future president, James Madison convinced his colleagues of the strength of his plan, termed the Virginia Plan. While other plans were produced at the Convention (including the Hamilton Plan), ultimately the final result was a variation of Madison's plan. This is not to claim that Madison and Hamilton were the sole minds from which the Constitution sprung. Every one of the members presumably contributed some insight, especially Edmund Rudolph, John Rutledge, and Roger Sherman.

Yet Madison had the largest part, and along with his partner, Hamilton, offered the strongest support and explanation of the young document. In the Federalist Papers, these two, along with future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, outlined their understanding of the Constitution. And it must be assumed that if anyone understood the document, it must be the creators. Fortunately, they explained to the world what their intent was.

Comments