Back to Blog
Framer definition6/28/2023 ![]() ![]() For many of the states, the only solution to this problem was to mandate inclusion of a bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification, fearing that the centralizing tendencies of the new document would crush the rights of states and individuals. Meanwhile, a strong Anti-Federalist element developed quickly. ![]() Therefore, an enumeration of rights was not necessary.įrom late 1787 until 1789, the proposed Constitution was considered by the various state ratifying conventions. The new federal government possessed only limited powers delegated to it by the states no power had been granted to legislate on any of the subjects that might be included in a bill of rights. Almost all the delegates believed a bill of rights would be superfluous. The Bill of Rights was not a part of the document drafted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It can be unclear what the framers were thinking when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Jefferson strongly asserted that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were grounded in the principle embodied in the Tenth Amendment: that all undelegated powers are reserved “to the states respectively, or to the people.” Yet even Jefferson violated his interpretive theory when, after originally concluding that the Louisiana Purchase required a constitutional amendment, he authorized the transaction without one. Thomas Jefferson advocated still another method of constitutional interpretation: the rule of strict constructionism. Jefferson advocated for strict constructionism However, in what it says, the Constitution is liberal in granting powers to the national government. In his view, the Constitution spoke for itself there was no need to go behind it to ascertain the intent of the framers. Hamilton believed the Constitution's text should control the interpretationĪlexander Hamilton, who signed the Constitution on behalf of New York, looked to the Constitution itself, believing that the text should control its interpretation. In part, this reasoning explains Madison’s decision not to make public for many years the notes he took at the Constitutional Convention. James Madison, one of the drafters of the Constitution, felt strongly that future interpretation of the document should not rest primarily on the intentions of the framers, but on the intentions of the people who, through their state representatives, ratified the Constitution. Madison believed constitutional interpretation should rest on the intentions of the people who ratified the ConstitutionĪnother factor is that it has never been clear to what extent the framers’ intentions are relevant to the task of establishing constitutional norms. The courts’ commitment to original intent is somewhat tested, however, by the reality that the framers’ intentions are not always easy to identify. The term original intent refers to the notion that the judiciary should interpret the Constitution (including its amendments) in accordance with the understanding of its framers. (Painted by Howard Chandler Christy in 1940, public domain) O riginal intent refers to the notion that the judiciary should interpret the Constitution (including its amendments) in accordance with the understanding of its framers. Scene at the signing of the Constitution of the United States in a painting that hangs in the U.S.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |