Camille Glenn

INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION

Since its inception, the Constitution has been a very controversial document among
politicians, historians, and American citizens. The Constitution is a basic outline of the United
States governmental system. Although it was put into place in 1788, it is still the supreme law of
the United States and continues to guide American society in law and political culture. Because it
is such an old document and the original Framers are no longer living, there are debates over its
relevance and meaning. The major provocative question is about what source to use to interpret
the Constitution now: the original meaning of the Framers, or a more contemporary, loose
view that focuses on general ideas and consequences rather than exact text and intention. This
debate has come down to originalism versus non-originalism.
The Constitution was written to address all of the failings and weaknesses of the Articles
of Confederation. It aimed to create a stronger national government that well represented the
opinions of the people. It strived to form a more perfect union by bringing the thirteen separate
states together under uniform laws and systems. The Framers realized that too much liberty and
democracy could be what caused the nation to fail. They were looking for a way to balance
liberty and power. 1
Drafting the Constitution was not a simple or easy endeavor. Although most of the men in
the Constitutional Convention were of the same social status and shared a desire for a strong
national government, they all had varying perspectives and opinions of matters. According to
__________________________________
1 Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty!: An American history, Seagull third edition (New York:
W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2012), 258.

Camille Glenn
Jack Rakove, the drafting and ratifying both involved processes of collective decision-making
whose outcomes necessarily reflected a bewildering array of intentions and expectations, hopes
and fears, genuine compromises and agreements to disagree.2
The Framers original meaning of the Constitution is nearly impossible to define. These
men were attempting to build a new type of government from the ground up. They drew their
ideas from recent experiences and from the works of noted philosophers.3
Rakove mentions the three aspects to consider that all play a role: meaning, intention, and
understanding. Meaning would be the literal wording of each provision. Intention refers to the
forethought put into and purpose behind each provision. Understanding indicates how the readers
of the Constitution interpret it.4 Many provisions of the Constitution are written in general terms,
which produces different interpretations of the text. The Constitution is a fairly short document
and was created by fifty-five men in about four months, therefore, behind the textual brevity of
any clause there once lay a spectrum of complex views and different shadings of opinion.5
Although the meaning, intentions, and understanding of the Constitution are separate parts, they
all intertwine through the interpretation of the document.
Being a long-term contract, the Constitution requires modification from time to time.
Because formal modification through the Amendment process is difficult and not guaranteed,
flexible interpretation of provisions is necessary to effectively manage changing circumstances.
Non-originalism allows judges to avert negative consequences that could result from the rigid
_______________________________
2 Jack N. Rakove, The Perils of Originalism, in Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas
in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Knopf, 1996), 3-22 in What Did the Constitution
Mean to Early Americans? Edward Countryman (Boston Bedford/ St. Martins, 1999), 145.
3 Ibid., 152.
4 Ibid., 147.
5 Ibid., 149.

Camille Glenn
interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. It also
allows progression of the Constitution in order to stay in sync with more rational understandings
of the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
The Constitution should continue, as it has for decades, to be revered and studied. It is a
highly significant document in American history that symbolizes the transformation of political
thought. It is a successful model of government and has been influential to many other countries
as a guide for creating a stronger nation.
The Constitution should not, however, be interpreted based on the Framers original
meaning. They were intelligent, politically enlightened men who should be fully credited and the
quest for their original meaning should continue on a historical level. The purposes and reasons
behind the Constitution should also continue to be analyzed and explored further.
The literal meaning of the text and the original intentions of the framers should not be
what determine the current interpretation of the document. The Constitution should continue to
be used on an abstract level as a basic, loose outline of the United States government, focusing
more on the ideas encompassed by the document rather than on specific provisions. The
provisions should be seen as a set of guidelines, or just as another opinion. Its content, because it
was created so long ago, can be regarded as unbiased.6 Judges can see the provisions as neutral,
objective guidelines for making legitimate decisions. The Framers original meaning should be
considered, but with regard to current circumstances. This is a rapidly changing and growing
world. The Constitution was created over 200 years ago in a completely different, much smaller
world. Its original meaning alone cannot be fully relied on to cover todays situations.
___________________________
6 Ibid., 146.

Camille Glenn