…..James Madison is reputed by those who don’t know any better to be the “Father of the Constitution.” In fact, Madison lost more votes than he won at Philadelphia, although he did more maneuvering and scribbling than any other delegate.
Image via Wikipedia
In his almost half-century of post-ratification life Madison was all over the place, contradicting himself numerous times on constitutional interpretation.
But Madison himself in one of his more lucid moments tells us where we should look for the meaning of the Constitution.
The meaning of the Constitution, he avowed, is to be found in the understanding of those who ratified it, who alone gave what was merely a proposal all the authority it possesses.
So we must look for understanding at the discussions that preceded the ratification conventions and at the conventions themselves. McClanahan knows this ground thoroughly and tells us in convincing chapter and verse on each article what those who ratified the Constitution intended and, perhaps more importantly, what they did not intend.
The opponents of the Constitution feared that the document would prove an instrument for the incremental establishment of a centralized dictatorship over the people.
They were right. But, as McClanahan makes clear, the proponents of the Constitution swore point by point that the powers granted were limited and no cause for alarm. These assurances persuaded some of the doubtful.
Ratification would never have passed otherwise, and, as it was, it only passed with assurances that amendments would be swiftly adopted and with several States making it clear that their ratification was revocable.So in interpretation we ought to be guided by what the proponents of the Constitution plainly said it intended. This is what McClanahan elucidates point by point. If we accept what its proponents said, then those who ratified it believed that it established a limited federal power.
Third-string “political philosophers” and “Constitutional scholars,” and even learned jurists, have made an icon out of The Federalist, but it is only one of many discussions of the Constitution. It was a partisan document designed to overcome the objections of New York, and was not very convincing to its audience since ratification passed in New York by the narrowest possible margin Furthermore, it discusses the Constitution as it was merely a proposal under consideration and not the Constitution as ratified by the people of the States, who made their intentions clear in the undisputable language of the 10th Amendment.
The authors – Madison, Hamilton, and Jay – were all disappointed that the Constitution did not centralize power as much as they would have liked, yet realized what they had to say to win over the majority. On the part of Alexander Hamilton, contributions to The Federalist were outright dishonest, because once he got into power he worked to do all sorts of things that he claimed the Constitution did not authorize.The Federalist, which we see cited all the time as the key to the Constitution is speculation and was never ratified by anybody.
Read more…
Recent Comments