Interpretation and the U.S. Constitution

My view about the U.S. Constitution itself forms the basis for my thoughts about its interpretation. The Constitution is the basic law of the country and defines the powers delegated to government and the protections afforded the rights of the people. The powers are enumerated and limited. The rights are unlimited and reserved to the states and to the people.

With this background the meaning of "originally", "textualist", and "strict constructionist" can be examined, as well as their opposite. The AP story on 8/26/05 entitled Originalist? Constructionist? A Confirmation-Hearing Glossary by Darlene Superville attempts to provide the general public with some of the background on these terms.

For instance the article defines Originalism as a legal philosophy that say the constitution means the same today as it did when it was drafted in the summer of 1787, making no allowances for societal changes, and that the mean can only be changed by amendment. Textualists are those who take the Constitution's words at face value without trying to figure out the drafters' intentions. And strict constructionists stick to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at that time.

The most recent controversy over eminent domain provides good illustrative material. The court decided that the City of New London, Connecticut could take the private land of some citizens to deliver it to other private parties for the public purpose of improving the city generally and its tax base. The argument revolved around whether this was a justifiable public purpose. The actual text of the constitution in the fifth amendment reads: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As defined, from an originalist viewpoint public purpose may not be synonymous with public use. If in fact the property to be taken is for a public purpose but private use the original words of the constitution would seem to preclude that. Of importance is that this section limits the power of government. Since government cannot have more powers than are granted to it by the consent of the people, any interpretation which enhances those powers without their consent is tyrannical.

From a textualist or strict constructionist standpoint "public use" would seem to have a face value meaning, and it unlikely that the voters then or now would have equated public use with public purpose. For a court substitute their own words for those accepted and ratified by the people is also tyrannical.

Can the constitution serve its purpose of limiting the power of government and protecting the rights of the people if a single branch of government, the judiciary, is capable and empowered to expanded the powers or limit the rights of the people without their consent? Prima facie, such a position is impossible to defend.

I conclude that when a controversy involves increased powers, the most limited and circumspect interpretation should be made of the constitutional wording, so as to limit the powers of government to only those knowingly granted by the people from whom they derive. In a controversy involving rights, that interpretation which is most liberal in describing the rights of the people should be adopted, as all rights endowed in them by their creator are reserved to them or to the states.