The U.s. Constitution: What Did They Really Mean?

When America’s founding fathers sat down and hammered out the Constitution, they were creating a document that was ‘intended to endure for ages to come.’  Does this mean they intended us to interpret the document literally, as many believe should be done with the Christian Bible, or was it their intent that the document should be adapted to existing circumstances?  If you’re to believe many, like some of the Tea Party people who think it should be taken exactly as written with no interpretation at all.  Justice John Marshall, writing in an 1819 Supreme Court case, though, said it should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.

Which point of view is right?

In response to that question, I’d start with what I usually say to people who insist that the Bible is the ‘literal word of God;’ God didn’t speak English; the Bible has been translated from Amharic through Latin and Greek, and translation errors are bound to creep into such a process.  In addition, injunctions in this text are based on social, technological, and cultural norms of the time when it was written.  It is the same with the Constitution.

At the time the Constitution was written slavery was not only common, but under the existing laws, legal, and women were considered minors who had no legal rights.  Thus, they decreed that a black person was three-fifths a person, and women had no right to vote.  That both of these odious clauses have been amended should be evidence enough for any rational person that this is a document that is, and was intended to be, flexible and reflective of the times.

How can we, for instance, use a literal reading of the Constitution to make decisions regarding control of technology or broadcasting or international air travel, when these technologies weren’t even envisioned when it was written?  Can the Constitution without some modification apply to motion picture censorship when still photography hadn’t even been invented?

We must never forget that the Constitution was written during a time of crisis, when many weren’t even sure that the newly founded United States of America would survive.  It was written in secret to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation, and even the drafters were not in total agreement.  It was a compromise document meant to provide a sense of direction to a new nation that the founders hoped would grow and prosper. Richard Stengel points out in a article in the July 4, 2011 issue of Time Magazine. “One Document, Under Siege,” the framers of the Constitution were, after all, revolutionaries.  They feared a central government that was too strong, but at the same time, they realized that the hodgepodge of powers in the states under the Articles wasn’t working, so they actually created a strong central government.  This was mitigated to a degree by establishing three separate but co-equal branches which would serve to counterbalance each other.

There’s never been a time when the Constitution wasn’t debated – from the very beginning.  It has been debated endlessly, and amended when necessary to reflect changing times.  What would be useful in the present debate, however, would be to recognize once and for all that a document written over two hundred years ago cannot logically be literally applied to our world today, and until we can perfect time travel – to the past and future – we would be better served to do what the founding fathers wanted us to do; move on and continue to grow.

Image by The U.S. National Archives via Flickr