Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution

Rakove is one of the most eminent scholars of the Founding, as well as a self proclaimed Madisonian. The thoroughness, and writing style is excellent to be sure. One of the concerns I seem to have is the tendency to use the plethora of information in a way distinctly different than that in which Madison conveyed the ideas.

An example is the mention of William Findley expressing an irony that the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority was used by Madison as 'good authority for the true sense of the Constitution'.* It suggests that the Pennsylvania Dissent was the exegesis. In contrast it seems Madison was recounting the numerous objections to the Constitution that the burgeoning call for the Bill of Rights had evoked. In examining the Debates on the Constitution it seems a consistent concern existed as the possible expansion of the National Powers in the Constitution. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights seems to reinforce this idea,

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."



Apparently the States had certain apprehensions to a ' misconstruction', or misinterpretation. To that end Madison ushered the Bill of Rights through the First Session of the First Congress. Recent scholarship by Kurt Lash of Loyola details this rather succinctly. As does the work by Labunski in his book James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. Professor Lash notes Madison's claim that the Ninth Amendment was 'as guarding against a latitude of interpretation' is missing from Original Meanings. What I find odd is that it is missing, yet in the work Rakove edited, The Madison Writings it is there in total. This is in Madison's speech opposing the Bank Bill.

Drew McCoy in the 'Last of the Fathers' often expressed the Madisonian idea that examining the history of the times was far more valuable than an interpretive methodology.** To that end Madison stressed from one point forward, that the Ratifying Conventions were the source of the Constitution powers. In rather explicit and implicit terms the Conventions seem to at least convey stern warning as to what the Ratifiers did not wish the Constitution to mean. Assuaging those who had apprehensions was a legitimate desire on Madison's part, for by that effort he would take passive acceptance of some and bring them to a deeper confidence of the nascent republic. Rakove posed an additional objection here as well, mentioning the ratifying Conventions were difficult to access. Madison by the testimony of Fisher Ames and others had diligently collected this from newspapers and, letters to others, so I wonder of this claim, in addition the resolutions accompanying the Ratifying Conventions were pretty explicit as to what they were not accepting.***



The scholarship the Coda the depth are admirable, but there are still a few questions out there.





* Original Meanings page 360

** Last of the Fathers 133

*** Debate on the Constitution part two 536 574

The title should include this addendum: "An in-depth look at the American experience during the ratification of the Constitution." One can't fault the author's knowledge or research, but his ability to write a captivating book about an important subject is wanting. At a time in U.S. Constitutional history when the questionable theory of "original intent" is tossed about by conservative judicial activists to justify their judicial philosophy, the book misses the opportunity to explore and synthesize original meaning from a variety of perspectives at the time ratification was being debated. Instead, the book delves into the details of ratification, including vote apportionment (seemingly endlessly?)without providing the reader with much more than a detailed review of the general attitude of the American "deciders" and the influence of our history with England and Revolution. Worthy endeavors, but not the type of discussion that helps one understand original meaning and the validity of it as a judicial philosophy in the context of what was being attempted, why, and what the Constitution's proponents thought it meant for future "deciders." As the Supreme Court now confronts issues of our time, it would have been nice to juxtapose original meaning at the time of ratification with current popular understanding of that concept and discuss its strengths and flaws as a judicial philosophy. Alas, that will be for another book.

"Original Meaning is a good academic history book of details, but it doesn't contribute much to the understanding of original meaning on today's reality, and thus, falls short of the promise of its title.

I just finished reading this book for a class in U.S. Constitutional History and my Professor has aptly noted that this book really attempts to do two things: first, it makes this point about Originalism, demonstrating that any attempt to divine original meaning, intention, or understanding is perilous because of the diverse thought, political motivations, and interests present in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Second, it attempts to show the difficulties of Constitution-making, and how the framers attempted to reconcile a revolutionary republican ideology with the practical problems of governance.

While the conclusion of the first objective has been criticized and debated by various reviewers (and appropriately so), I believe that this book is extremely valuable in its accomplishment of this second purpose. With dense yet incredibly readable prose, Rakove demonstrates that the Constitution was an attempt to combine republican principles with the practical experiences of the States during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation.

Using a few topical discussions such as a discussion of views on Representation, the Presidency, and Rights, Rakove illuminates the thinking embraced by the Framers (such as that of Locke, Montesquieu, and others) and compares and relates such principles with the real experience and concerns of the Framers (such as Madison's view that the States were becoming destructive of property rights under the Confederation). Such descriptions go a long way in describing how and why the Framers crafted the systems of government found in the Constitution and why these systems drew some criticism from both inside and outside the Convention.

While this book is (as others have pointed out) aimed more towards scholars than the layman, I highly recommend this book to any serious student of the Constitution. Prior knowledge of the events of the Revolutionary period is a must, and having read Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" or Wood's "Creation of the American Republic" will be helpful.

While the Originalism issue comes up here, this book will illuminate your understanding of the Framing of the Constitution generally, and it allows the reader to make up his/her own mind about the author's thesis (or really perhaps better here called an admonition) about the Constitution's original meaning.

Our Constitution has been misconceived by the so called "progressive" Left for over half a century - at least since the days of the New Deal. It is not a list of suggestions passed on by the founders to be modified in each succeeding generation according to the prevailing mood of that generation.
The Constitution is a compact between the people and their government establishing the basic framework by which a free people are to be governed, and the the limits of the power to be wielded over them by that government. As such, it was meant to be a permanent framework for the government of the American people - not to be altered at the whim of Congress or the Courts.
The founders provided a method for amending the original compact. They did not leave it to Congress alone, nor did they conceive that the Courts would usurp the authority to rewrite the Constitution by judicial fiat.
They deliberately made the amendment process cumbersome and difficult in order to insure that any future modification of our fundamental compact of government could be achieved only with an overwhelming consensus of the electorate and of the states. This was done in order to preserve the institutions of a self-governing Republic, and to protect the rights of the people against the momentary and transient whims of public opinion, or the machinations of any faction which might achieve a temporary moment of dominance over the government.

A previous reviewer said it best already: this book is not for the average reader. If the person picking up this volume has a basic understanding of 18th century American thought, an open mind--critical not gullible, an understanding that America was not a unified nation until the Civil War, this very informative, thought provoking book will prove a treasure. You may not agree with the author in everything, but make sure you know enough to know why you disagree.