Oh dear… where are they going with this?
Chapter 2: What Were They Thinking?
Page 45: What does it mean?
At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a Philadelphia lady confronts Ben Franklin.
LADY
Well, doctor, what have we got?
A republic, or a monarchy?
BEN FRANKLIN
A republic, madam…
…if you can keep it.
James Madison packing all those crates and chests of books back on the cart, while Alexander Hamilton looks on (not helping).
JAMES MADISON
Now comes the *oof* hard part…
persuading the people…
to ratify this thing!
ALEXANDER HAMILTON
Just say the word, Jemmy. You know I’d be more than happy to lend a hand.
Sis looking mind-blown.
SIS
Whoa! That was a messy process.
And that was just for Article Five — one of the short ones!
Still, now we’ve got a sense of how difficult it is to say “what they were thinking.”
Average Joe explaining
AVERAGE JOE
What? No! …well, yes… I mean sure, they kicked around lots of ideas… clashed over personal agendas and over fundamental principles…
…And yeah, they changed their minds, or abandoned ideas (or forgot they’d raised them)… Some stuff was just rushed through…
Stick figures
JOE
…And I admit each one would’ve had his own reasons to agree with any particular clause or compromise…
FIGURES
It’s not ideal, but it satisfies my principles.
It’s not perfect, but it’ll work.
I don’t care about this one. I’m sure it’s fine.
Booyah! This is exactly what I wanted!
Joe, Sis, and Gouverneur Morris
JOE
BUT! Now that you’ve seen how the sausage got made, we can spare you every detail of every debate over every other clause in the Constitution, and
SIS
Quickly
JOE
summarize “what they were thinking” for each of its provisions!
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS
Why?
Who cares?
Joe and Guv’neer
JOE
Ha ha, very funny.
But all joking aside, it’s important that we understand what you all intended.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS
Can’t imagine why.
The text is what does the constituting. The words are what tell the government what it can and cannot do.
Whiteboard: The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. *When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. *When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. *No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS
Don’t ask what we were trying to say. Ask what the Constitution does say.
Forget context… forget subtext…
All I’d care about is the plain meaning of the text.
Jemmy Madison indicating a debate at a ratification convention
JAMES MADISON
But “plain” to whom?
We may have thought it meant one thing when we wrote it, but its audience may think it means something else!
If you ask what I think, the relevant audience is the people who decided to ratify the Constitution back in ’88 & ’89.
In other words, it means what they thought they were buying into!
I’d check what was said at the state ratifying conventions.
Alexander Hamilton writing one of the Federalist Papers by candle-and moonlight
ALEXANDER HAMILTON
OK, but also what was written — especially how you and Jay and I explained what the Constitution meant in our “Federalist Papers.”
Wouldn’t that reflect what pro-Constitution people thought?
(And I’m still amazed it was Guv’neer, of all people, who said no when I asked him to help write ’em.)
Morris and Sis pondering
MORRIS
God, don’t start asking what some audience or other thought it means — you go looking for subjective interpretations, who knows what you’ll find.
Honestly, it’s so simple: Just stick to the objective meaning of the words, as understood by any ordinary American in the late 1800s.
That’s all you need!
SIS
No… I think Mr. Madison has a point.
Two stick figures, one communicating a purple cartoon unicorn, the other imagining a white medieval unicorn.
SIS
Words are communication. Communication isn’t a solo activity.
What gets communicated depends as much on the audience as on the author—probably more!
So in 1788 and 1789, the Constitution would’ve meant what those who ratified it understood it to mean,
while these days…
Sis reading on a nice ottoman in a library, Joe yelling
SIS
What the Constitution says to us depends on how its words resonate with us now… In our context, in our reality. The words aren’t written in stone, why should their meaning be?
JOE
NO NO NO!
The Constitution isn’t a work of literature…
Joe working on a car
JOE
It’s an instruction manual!
Try working on a car, inventing new interpretations of what the manual says to do…
Joe driving off, car breaks
JOE
It won’t run… you’ll break it.
Morris, Madison, and Sis
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS
What he said.
SIS
Ah, but times change… and so does language. What if the text can’t keep up?
{SUGGESTED EDIT: Add “models change” before “times change”}
MADISON
Umm… we thought of that?
You want new meaning? Give it new words. Where’ve you been this whole chapter?
Sis, James Wilson, James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Sis again
SIS
You mean amend it? But don’t you see-
JAMES WILSON
Hoot toot! It’s not a step-by-step instruction manual.
It’s a more general design. The particulars can adapt as needed.
JAMES MADISON
True… and we framers even disagreed on how to interpret the Constitution… practically from day one.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS
But that was us interpreting how to apply the words… not re-interpreting what the words actually mean.
Do we ignore the dictionary just because a word ought to mean something else?
SIS
YES!