The original intent of the U.S. Constitution serves as the secure foundation of the success of our republic, anchoring our legal and governmental systems to the principles envisioned by the framers. This foundation, meticulously laid out by the likes of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, was designed to create a stable yet flexible framework for governance. It ensures that liberty and limited government remain at the core of our political structure. However, this bedrock principle is increasingly neglected in educational curricula and legal instruction, leading to a gradual erosion of the very values that have sustained our nation for over two centuries. By understanding and adhering to the original intent, we can preserve the integrity and stability of our constitutional republic, much like the framers intended when they debated and drafted the nation's supreme law.
Public School Curriculum
In public schools, the teaching of the Constitution often focuses on its text and broader interpretations rather than delving deeply into the framers' original intentions. For example, the emphasis in civics education is typically on the structure of the government, the Bill of Rights, and significant Supreme Court cases that have shaped constitutional law over time. This approach, while informative, tends to overlook the philosophical and historical context in which the framers crafted the document. According to the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, the records of the debates of the state ratifying conventions, which are crucial for understanding the original intent, are rarely utilized in contemporary education.
Higher Education and Law Schools
At the collegiate level, and particularly in law schools, the trend continues. Law schools primarily teach "constitutional law," which largely revolves around case law—the body of prior judicial decisions. This method, while practical for understanding how the Constitution is applied today, often neglects the framers' original intentions. The Constitution Center highlights that this shift away from original intent has led to a reliance on interpretations that adapt the Constitution to contemporary values and circumstances, a concept known as "living constitutionalism".
The Shift from Original Intent to Case Law
The shift from original intent to case law and living constitutionalism is exemplified in how landmark cases are taught. For instance, decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade are analyzed primarily for their judicial reasoning and impact, rather than for how the framers might have viewed the issues of privacy and abortion. This approach has been criticized by originalists who argue that such interpretations stray from the Constitution's original meaning and intent. Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, has emphasized that the Constitution should not be stretched to address every societal ill, a view that starkly contrasts with broader interpretations that extend constitutional protections beyond the text.
Harvard Law School's Shift to Case Law
Harvard Law School, one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States, made a significant shift to teaching case law in the late 19th century. Christopher Columbus Langdell, the dean of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895, is credited with pioneering the case method approach to legal education. Langdell believed that the principles of law could be best understood by studying judicial decisions, rather than focusing on the original intent of the Constitution or statutory law. This approach quickly became the standard in legal education across the country, further marginalizing the study of original intent.
The Importance of Original Intent
Originalists argue that understanding the original intent is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the Constitution. The framers designed the Constitution to be a stable foundation for governance, intentionally making it difficult to amend and resistant to fleeting political pressures. This framework ensures that changes occur through deliberate, democratic processes rather than judicial activism.
James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," emphasized the importance of adhering to the original intent of the framers. In Federalist No. 62, Madison warned against mutable government, stating, "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood".
Similarly, Thomas Jefferson advocated for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, cautioning against judicial overreach. In a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823, Jefferson wrote, "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed".
Conclusion
The marginalization of the original intent in educational curricula and legal instruction reflects a broader trend towards a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution. While this approach accommodates societal changes, it risks undermining the foundational principles that the framers intended to preserve. To truly understand and honor the Constitution, it is essential to reintegrate the study of the framers' original intentions into both public education and legal training. By doing so, we can ensure that the Constitution remains a steadfast protector of liberty and limited government, as originally envisioned.
Call to Action: To preserve the Constitution's original intent and protect our Republic, become a volunteer for the Convention of States movement by visiting conventionofstates.com.
