Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning

constitution quill pen SC 300x197 Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning

It is often said that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its “original intent, “original understanding,” or “original meaning.” Is there any difference between these concepts? And if so, which is the proper standard?

This is an area in which there has been a great deal of confusion, largely because few constitutional writers are familiar with how 18th-century lawyers and judges construed documents.

We can begin clearing the confusion by defining the terms. The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.

The original understanding of a constitutional provision usually refers to the subjective opinion of the 1648 state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution. Principal sources are the records of the ratifying debates. For example, if Delegate X explained a provision in the document in a particular way and no one contradicted him, then (particularly if Delegate X was a proponent) you can infer that other delegates understood the provision the same way. Indirect and circumstantial evidence for original understanding include what Framers and commentators said about the provision, as well as the meaning of the words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources.

The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.

Read More at tenthamendmentcenter.com. By Rob Natelson.

Related posts:

  1. Can Anyone Discover The Meaning In Life? There is a character in Greek mythology named Sisyphus, was…
  2. Experts Say Obama Certificate Not Scan Of Original Document Detailed technical analysis of the PDF file the White House…

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. ProundPatriotToo says:

    Go to Hilldale's college internet sight and you can get the right interpretation of the Constitution. They are giving classes on line for free (Constitution 101). Also, look for Heritage.com. Weekly and monthly they have explained the Constitution to anyone who wants answers/has questions; since Obama's first year in office. They have explained how he has been violating the Constitution daily, since 2008. The truth is out there, if you really want to know the real truth.

Speak Your Mind

*