The Framer's Intent: A Constitutional Interpretation

The framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who sought to address the challenges facing the nation during their time and establish foundational principles to guide the new nation into an uncertain future. They outlined broad principles, such as freedom of speech, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, intending for future generations to interpret and adapt them to changing circumstances. The framers also considered the role of the judiciary and the protection of minority rights, recognizing the potential imperfections of majority rule. The interpretation and application of the Constitution continue to be a subject of debate, with some projecting their personal and political preferences onto the framers' original intent.

Explore related products

The Framers' Intentions: The Myth of the Nonpartisan Constitution

$39.99 $50

Founding Fathers: The Essential Guide to the Men Who Made America

$14.77 $19.99

Founding Fathers

$19 $19.98

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

$8.92 $19

America's Founding Fathers (TV Series)

$2.99

America's Founding Fathers

$14.49 $18.8

The Framers' Constitution: foundational principles to address future challenges

The Framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who designed the Constitution to endure and address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes. They also established foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future. The Framers understood that they were entrusting future generations with the responsibility to interpret and apply these principles in changing contexts. This understanding, often referred to as "The Framers' Constitution," acknowledges that while the principles remain constant, their interpretation and application must adapt to an ever-changing society.

The Framers' Constitution recognises that while the Framers considered majority rule the best system of government, they were aware of its imperfections. They understood the potential for political majorities to enact self-serving laws, the fragility of fundamental freedoms and structural limitations in times of crisis, and the risk of prejudice and intolerance towards minorities. The Framers intended for the courts to play a pivotal role in mitigating these concerns, with Thomas Jefferson emphasising the importance of "the legal check" that the judiciary could exercise.

Another key aspect of the Framers' Constitution is the intention to limit the relative political influence of the voting public, particularly regarding control over state governments. The Framers aimed to insulate Congress, the judiciary, and the executive from populist pressures. For example, before the 17th Amendment, senators were selected by state legislators rather than directly elected by voters, and the president was chosen by a body of electors appointed by the states. The Framers also kept the House of Representatives relatively small and ensured federal judges' independence through tenure and salary protections.

While the Framers' Constitution provides a framework for addressing future challenges, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of their intentions. The interpretation of the Constitution should not be used to project personal or political preferences onto the Framers, as this can lead to incoherent and disingenuous jurisprudence. Instead, the focus should be on adapting the broad principles of the Constitution to address the various crises of human affairs, as Chief Justice John Marshall observed.

Majority rule: the best system of government, but imperfect

The framers of the US Constitution considered majority rule to be the best system of government, but they also knew it to be imperfect. They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that entrench their power and authority, and that prejudice, hostility, and intolerance may lead governing majorities to disregard the needs and interests of minorities.

To address these concerns, the framers intended for the courts to play a central role. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 78, explained that the federal courts "were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and their legislature" to ensure that the people's representatives acted within the authority granted by the Constitution. The judiciary, through "legal check", would protect the people's fundamental freedoms and rights, such as freedom of speech, due process of law, freedom of religion, equal protection of the laws, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, explored the tension between majority rule and minority rights. He argued that the large size and diversity of the country would make it difficult for factions to gain control and that negotiation and compromise would be necessary, leading to solutions that respect minority rights. Madison also emphasized the role of independent tribunals of justice in guarding against malfunctions of majority governance.

However, conservatives have argued in recent decades that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds in preserving self-governance and protecting the rights of vulnerable groups. They have criticized "judicial activism" and advocated for a more restrained approach, believing that judges should not interfere with the decisions of elected majorities.

The American democratic system, as outlined by the framers, is not solely based on majority rule. Certain principles, such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, are considered so fundamental that even a majority cannot interfere without a Constitutional Amendment. The framers understood that future generations would need to interpret and apply these broad principles to changing circumstances.

Political influence: protecting property rights and limiting populist pressures

The framers of the US Constitution had anti-populist aims in mind while drafting the document. They wanted to insulate the federal government from political accountability relative to the Articles of Confederation or contemporaneous state governments. The aftermath of the American Revolution had left destroyed property, weakened economic demand, depreciating money, and exclusion from trade with the British Empire, resulting in a severe economic recession. At the same time, states had levied heavy taxes on residents to repay war debts, leading to land foreclosures and even violent insurrections, such as Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts.

The framers tried to insulate Congress from populist pressures by ensuring senators were selected by state legislators and not directly elected by voters. Members of the Senate were also given longer terms of office (six years) to further insulate them from populist influence. The House of Representatives, despite having members directly elected, was kept relatively small to limit its populist inclinations. The framers also considered how to shield the judiciary from populist influence. They established a nationwide system of courts to protect the interests of the federal government, particularly with regard to taxation and the enforcement of federal treaties. Federal judges were given tenure and protection from salary diminution to safeguard their political independence.

The framers understood that they were creating broad principles that would need to be adapted to an ever-changing society. They knew that majority rule was the best system of government, but they also knew it was imperfect. They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that serve their interests and that fundamental freedoms may be sacrificed in times of crisis. They intended for courts to play a central role in addressing these concerns. Thomas Jefferson, for example, argued that the judiciary could exercise a "legal check" to resist encroachment on individual rights.

The framers also believed that the government was created to protect property, not redistribute it. State politicians had begun passing various debt relief measures in response to their constituents' demands, which were popular with debtor farmers but not with the nation's propertied or creditor classes, including Washington and many of his fellow framers. The framers believed that such measures were contrary to natural rights and terrible policy.

Explore related products

America The Story of Us (TV Series)

$2.99

Founding Fathers: The Fight for Freedom and the Birth of American Liberty

$14.18 $40

Founding Fathers [DVD]

$8.57 $11.98

America's Hidden Stories (TV Series)

$2.99

Washington (TV Series)

$2.99

Founding Fathers: A Captivating Guide to Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Monroe (Historical Figures)

$20.95 $25.22

Judicial independence: safeguarding against political majorities

The framers of the US Constitution intended for the judicial branch to be independent and free from political pressure. They were influenced by political thinkers of the past, such as the Frenchman Montesquieu, who believed that the best way to preserve individual liberty and avoid tyranny was to divide the powers of government into the legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Article III of the Constitution states that federal judges may hold their positions during "good behaviour," which effectively means they have lifetime appointments as long as they meet ethical and legal standards. This provision was designed to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and protect it from political majorities. The framers also included that the legislative and executive branches may not combine to punish judges by decreasing payments for their services, further protecting them from political influence.

The framers believed that an independent judiciary was critical to fairness and impartiality and that it would help protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Alexander Hamilton, a framer of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary was the "least dangerous" branch because it held neither the purse strings of the legislature nor the force of the executive. He argued that an independent judiciary was essential to check the excessive exercise of power by the other branches of government.

Judicial independence is essential for safeguarding against political majorities and ensuring a fair and impartial justice system. It helps protect the rights of individuals and minorities and ensures that judges can make decisions based on facts, law, and neutral principles without being influenced by political pressure. However, judicial independence has faced threats throughout history, including political attacks on judges and changes to the judicial system that could undermine its independence.

Originalism: interpreting the Constitution through the Framers' intentions

Originalism is the concept in American jurisprudence that the Constitution should be interpreted and applied in a manner that aligns with the intentions of those who drafted and ratified it. This school of thought asserts that the original meaning and understanding of the Constitution should be the guiding principle for constitutional interpretation. Originalists believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended for it to be enduring and adaptable to future challenges. They argue that the Framers established foundational principles that would guide the nation into an uncertain future, and that these principles should be broadly interpreted while remaining true to the Framers' original intent.

The Framers of the Constitution, often referred to as the Founding Fathers, were the drafters and ratifiers of the United States Constitution. They included individuals such as George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and Thomas Jefferson. The Framers sought to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes while also establishing enduring principles to sustain the new nation. They understood the potential imperfections of majority rule and the need for checks and balances to protect fundamental freedoms and the rights of minorities.

One example of originalist interpretation is the belief that the Framers intended for courts to play a central role in addressing concerns related to political majorities enacting laws that entrench their authority or infringe on fundamental freedoms. Thomas Jefferson's response to arguments against a bill of rights in 1789 highlights this aspect, as he emphasized the role of the judiciary in providing "the legal check" to protect against such actions by political majorities. Originalists also point to the establishment of a nationwide system of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as evidence of the Framers' intention to protect federal interests and interpret the Constitution.

However, critics of originalism argue that judges engaging in originalist analysis often project their personal and political preferences onto the Framers. They claim that there is a lack of evidence to support certain interpretations, such as the assertion that the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause prohibited affirmative action. Critics also point out that the Framers recognized the need for adaptability and the responsibility of future generations to apply their intelligence, judgment, and experience to interpret the broad principles outlined in the Constitution.

In conclusion, originalism emphasizes interpreting the Constitution through the Framers' intentions by understanding their original meaning and applying it to modern contexts. While originalists believe this approach ensures consistency and respect for the Framers' vision, critics argue that it can lead to the projection of modern beliefs onto the Framers and that it fails to fully account for the evolving nature of society and the need for adaptability in constitutional interpretation.

Frequently asked questions