The Constitutionalist as the Founders Intended

 by

      M. Richard Maxson

 

       The term constitutionalist is used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the US Constitution. The person may be known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. This person typically favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution, and one that is small not only in size but also in scope and in power. There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist.

      Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers’ original intent, which is said to be more important than the precise words used. This intent is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalist Papers are but one of the favored sources of the originalist.

      Originalists need to emphasize that the “intent of the makers” standard is not unique to constitutional interpretation. It is, and long has been, the standard for interpreting documents generally. Pre-Founding-era and Founding-era legal sources show the “intent of the makers” guiding construction of documents of all kinds, with the notable exception of real estate conveyances. Of course, the identity of the “makers” varied with the nature of the instrument. For a statute, the “makers” were the legislators (not the legislative drafters); for a will, the testator; for a contract, the contracting parties; for a constitution, the ratifiers. Today we usually refer to the “the intent of the parties” rather than the intent of the makers, but originalism remains the prevailing rule of documentary construction throughout the law.

      Extrapolations of the Constitution in modern times

based in semantics has happened too often. Judicial activists, who believe in a false idea of a “living” constitution and forcefully apply their own interpretations. This is nothing new. It happened almost immediately after the signing. As James Madison stated at the time, “…. the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders. Constitutionalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought, NOT what the current society wants. The Constitution allows for laws to be passed and allows for changes to the document excluding tyranny of the majority to satisfy the current society. It is the greatest document of mankind to date and it needs to be heeded, not ridiculed by fools.

      It has long been held that the Constitution, as well as laws and other legally binding documents, should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. Ninety-Two percent of people expressed support for the idea that a good Supreme Court judge should “uphold the values of those who wrote our Constitution two hundred years ago.” The Constitution cannot protect our rights if we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom is not free, and the Constitution is just some words on paper if we do not do anything to those who violate it.