Original Intent

We hear these words spoken with reverence whenever there is a discussion of how to interpret the Constitution. They are used to shame others into the belief that a specific political idea or aspiration is baked in and should not be questioned.

When you read the writings of Founders you get a broader sense of what they were trying to accomplish in the fifteen-year period from 1774 to 1789. It is remarkable to reflect that these men all but Adams, slave owners, many of whom married into their fortunes were able to accomplish something unprecedented in such a short period.

They were the first to throw off the bonds of their colonial taskmaster and establish a form of government that has endured for 235 years. Today, we assume that our success is a reasonable and assured outcome. It is sobering to note that Haiti was the second to follow in our footsteps. The Founders embedded three principles in the Constitution. These are the essence of their “Original Intent”:

1. Too much power in too few hands is a bad thing. They had endured the tyranny of divine kings and were well read in the histories of Greece and Rome. They designed a form of governance that created a tension between Federal Power and State Power. The major obstacle to the Constitution’s adoption was the belief by many who had distinguished themselves in the break from England that Federal Governance was a substitute for Kings. Patrick Henry, a Revolutionary hero has been denied membership in the circle of Founders because he nearly succeeded in denying ratification by the state of Virginia which would have doomed the endeavor at its inception. In addition, they created three distinct branches of governance each of which had the power to reign in the other and isolated each from the dangers of pure democracy by allowing the citizenry to only elect members of the House of Representatives.

2. The Founders were adamant about one Revolution being enough. They wanted a form of governance that could absorb the desire for change without bringing down the whole system. Their view was confirmed in short order as they watched with horror as the French Revolution devolved into bloodshed. Ironically, the man who had studied Constitutions and their histories and was probably the most qualified to be engaged in the construction of a new one was Thomas Jefferson. At the time of the Convention, he was in France. Isolated from the proceedings, he wrote to Madison that in his view no generation had the right to proscribe a form of governance on the generation that succeeded it. An idea that has some resonance today. He wrote that every twenty years there should be a new convention and a new Constitution. Madison who communicated frequently with Jefferson during the Convention wisely ignored this suggestion. In 1801, Jefferson abandoned this radical view and presided over the first Constitutional transfer of power.

3. It was their view that an “Aristocracy of Talent” would convene and due to their inability to ascend to absolute power would debate, contemplate, and then compromise to create public policy that would “promote and or provide for the General Welfare”. So, there it is. Three fundamental principles. The essence of their “Original Intent”. Too Much Power in too few hands is a bad thing. One revolution was enough. Compromise is essential to good governance.