The US Constitution is notable for having a wide variety of ways to interpret its text. The multiplicity of interpretations demonstrates that what is literally written in the text is not as important as how somebody interprets it and what they intend to do with those interpretations. Whatever version of American Federalism that the Work-Standard favors will in turn require its own interpretation of the Constitution. The Aristocracy of Work expected lead the new-old Federalist Party will need that unique interpretation and its corresponding conception of American Federalism when America decides to adopt the Work-Standard. Thus, this Entry will be exploring the various ways of interpreting the US Constitution.
Interpretation by Historical Context: Textualism
“Textualism” involves interpreting the Constitution by the basic definitions of its text as a legal document. It seeks to know how early Americans during the Federalist Era understood the Constitution, the historical contexts in which the Constitution was ratified, and how those historical contexts are relevant to the circumstances of contemporary America. A Textualist interpretation presupposes that because there is an objective meaning behind the Constitution’s text, there is no need to understand the Intent behind why it was ratified and amended in the specific manner that it was.
Interpretation by Original Definition: Originalism
Unlike Textualism, which evaluates the Constitution based on the historical context of its legal language, “Originalism” seeks to interpret the Constitution according to how the American people understood it as a legal document at the time of its ratification. It argues that American people’s understandings of the Constitution evolved throughout US History in tandem with the development of American Federalism. There is an “‘objectively identifiable’” meaning behind the legal language that remains unchangeable. The ‘original definition’ can then be transplanted into contemporary times because the meanings have remained unchanged over the centuries.
Interpretation by Practicality: Pragmatism
“Pragmatism” is an outgrowth of Positivist Legalism, the idea that there is a scientifically proven way of interpreting the Constitution. True to the Scientific Method, it entails weighing the practical benefits and consequences of one interpretation of the Constitution against other opposing interpretations of the Constitution. Rather than adopt one interpretation or another based on any notable consideration, Pragmatism relies on a combination of differing interpretations to create a new and distinct interpretation on the basis that there are only benefits and costs to applying the Constitution.
Interpretation by Moralistic Appeal: Moral Reasoning
Certain interpretations are based on “Moral Reasoning,” according to a moral or value system of the interpreter. Whatever morals or values one adheres to as a Self can influence how they understand the Constitution and how it ultimately applies to them. Most interpretations in this category are usually ethical or theological rather than philosophical or ideological.
Interpretation by Intergovernmental Relations: Structuralism
“Structuralism” outlines its interpretation of the Constitution by inferring from the manner in which the Constitution was designed and the role it plays within American Federalism. It is a formalist approach that seeks to adhere to the Constitution in very literal terms. In essence, all of the powers vested in the Federal government has already been outlined. Every decision that the Federal government makes must abide by whatever is written in the Constitution.
Interpretation by Apolitical Legalism: Judicial Precedence
Interpreting the Constitution by “Judicial Precedence” is to understand it based on the earlier rulings of the Supreme Court. With its constitutional authority and the precedence that it had established in Marbury v. Madison, all interpretations are derived from the apolitical decisions of the Supreme Court. Every decision that the Supreme Court makes within a given case is to be binding on all future interpretations unless the Justices have decided that another case has convinced them that an earlier precedent is no longer applicable to contemporary times. The abandonment of one constitutional precedent is to be replaced by the adoption of another constitutional precedent.
Interpretation by Governmental Procedure: Historical Practice
Another related interpretation, “Historical Practice,” pertains to the idea that the Constitution is defined by the decision-makings of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. The three branches of the Federal government are centuries-old institutions whose existences are legitimized by the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document that continues to be written by the actions of the three branches, the American people deriving their interpretations from the historical and contemporary trajectory of Federal policymaking.
Interpretation by National Consciousness: National Ethos
The last and least well-known way of interpreting the Constitution is in accordance with the “National Ethos” of Americaness. The Constitution is constantly being shaped by the ongoing historical development of the Union. The “Founder’s Intent” and the American people’s understandings of the Constitution are one and the same insofar as the Constitution is a legal document that is meant to be by and for the American people as a Totality.
Limitations of the Constitutional Interpretations
For the Federalist Party’s Aristocracy of Work and American Federalism in particular, each of those eight interpretations have flaws which prevent them from being compatible with the Work-Standard. Remember, the old Federalist Party never intended the Constitution to be the source of an American National Culture; that alone needed to be defined by the American people and the Federal government. Obviously, the National Ethos interpretation is out of the question in an America where Culture Wars have left the definition of Americaness open to dispute.
It is likewise true for Historical Practice and Judicial Precedence. While those two are suitable for the Democratic-Republican Party’s interest, the same cannot be said for the Federalist Party or any other political party for that matter. To suggest otherwise would be to imply that the worst excesses of the Democratic-Republican Party are to be legitimized by some dubious claims of tradition. Again, this is great for the Jeffersonians but not for everyone else.
Conversely, outside of the Supreme Court, the scientist and the theologian should not be the only ones to interpret the Constitution for the American people. The political philosopher and theorist should also contribute to the American people’s interpretations because the Constitution is as much as political document as it is a legal one. Since the Federalist Worldview is both Pluralist and Nationalist, interpretations of the Constitution need to be timeless, universal and capable of gradual change.
It is for this reason that it is senseless to think that today’s Americans are the same Americans of the late 18th century. So much has changed since the Constitution was ratified. The American people, like the Totality of any other nation, are not mindless, soulless consumers incapable of reforming themselves, of rethinking and reevaluating past experiences. They are always constantly changing in response to those past experiences and acclimating themselves to the circumstances of a prevailing historical epoch. The Constitution, as a living document, is capable of having its own meanings changed by the American people.
That is why the Constitution will always be open to reinterpretation for as long as the American people continue to exist. It is not a matter of whether the historical context or definition can be recovered nor is it a matter of whether a political tradition could be acquired from an unwritten constitution. No, this is a matter of whether the true spirit and lessons that gave rise to the Constitution can be preserved, improved upon, and passed down to the next generation. Rather than retread over whatever has been done before or to lament over what should have been done if not for the Democratic-Republican Party, the Federalist Worldview deserves a new-old legacy. The legacy itself will find its inspiration in the articulation of another conception of American Federalism worthy of overcoming Jeffersonian New Federalism and Cooperative Federalism.
Categories: Compendium
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment