Jack N. Rakove's Original Meanings POLITICS AND IDEAS IN THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION

      Justice Scalia said some Supreme Court decisions were very easy for him to make because he uses the original intent of the framers of the Constitution as his guide.  Perhaps he should read Jack N. Rakove's Original Meanings POLITICS AND IDEAS IN THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION.  Actually this book should be mandatory reading in Early American History classes.
  A quick glance at the title of Jack N. Rakove's book might give the reader the impression that he or she is about to embark on a journey that will lead to the discovery of the oft sought after original intent of the framers of the Constitution.  However, the reader need only look at the back cover of the book, which contains the "praise for" comments to find out that this assumption is incorrect.  Stanley N. Katz, of the American Council of Learned Societies, states that Rakove's "answers will probably disappoint both the originalists and the advocates of a living Constitution."
Rakove writes in the Preface that his book has a dual purpose.  The first is "to explore how Americans created a national polity during the Revolutionary era" by examining "the politics of constitution-making and the major problems of constitutional theory and institutional design that Americans had  to consider" when creating "a true national government."  The second is to answer the questions as to "what authority should its 'original meaning (or 'original intention' or 'understanding') enjoy in its ongoing interpretation (xii)."  The author points out that addressing the first issue provides the foundation for exploring the second issue.  In doing so,  he disputes the belief that the "original intent" of the framers ought to be the final authority in the interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.
By his own admission, Rakove places a great deal of emphasis on James Madison particularly because of the role the fourth President played in the whole process which led to the creation and ratification of the new Constitution.  Without understanding Madison, the author believes that "we simply cannot understand how or why the Constitution took the form it did (xvi)."  For this reason, Rakove not only devotes an entire chapter to what he  calls "The Madisonian Moment", but repeatedly refers to Madison throughout book.
Along with Madison, Rakove's other sources include various writings from the members of the Philadelphia convention.  Although he "tried to give the Anti-Federalists their due" by using "their most trenchant objections to the Constitution" as a basis for the responses from the Federalists, he was "surprised to discover how much emphasis I have given to The Federalist."  He does acknowledge inherent problems in such a reliance on one body of writings because he believes that the "private concerns of the two principle authors (xv)", James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, must be taken into consideration when looking at the context of their writings.
Rakove's concern about the need to consider the relationship between the personal views held by Madison and Hamilton and their defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, which he briefly mentions in the Preface, are also referred to again in the sixth chapter of the book, "Debating the Constitution."  His reason for drawing attention to this subject provides a note of caution to the modern day advocates of "original intent" with regard to the problems inherent in their reliance on the writing of these two men in particular, as well as other Federalists.
The debates which took place in the press, in speeches and in broadsides between the Anti-Federalist and Federalists gave the latter the opportunity to offer their interpretation of the meaning of the document.  However, as Rakove points out, "their writings and statements" included "their individual assessments."  In the case of Madison and Hamilton, "the two authors repeatedly infused  . . . their own distinctive ideas about the fundamental issues of republicanism and federalism (155)."  Those ideas did not necessarily represent the common beliefs or "intent' of all the framers.  Therefore, while the essays of these two men can be seen as a starting point in attempting to discern the "original intent" of the Framers, one cannot overlook the inherent biases in their works.
Rakove raises another important issue with regard to relying too heavily on the concept of "original intent."  The specific nature of the ratification process as set forth by delegates in Philadelphia was intended to demonstrate that the Constitution received its legitimacy and authority from the people.  As a result, "the intentions of the framers were legally irrelevant to its interpretation" because those men were merely the authors of the document, not the source of either its acceptance, enactment, or power.  "But the understandings of the ratifiers could provide a legitimate basis for attempting to fix the original meaning of the Constitution (18)."  Determining exactly what those "understandings" were is difficult, if not nearly impossible.
The Federalists believed that the wording of the Constitution was clear.  The Anti-Federalists, however, found some clauses to be dangerously vague.  The danger being that the ambiguity would lead to the usurpation of power by the new government and the loss of individual rights.  If these two groups could read the same document and reach completely opposite understandings of its meaning, how could a large group of people possibly agree on one specific interpretation?
One of the reasons for the quest to uncover the "original intent" of the framers is to affix a specific and rigid meaning to the words of the Constitution.  Once that meaning is discovered, all are bound by it; there would be no leeway in interpreting the Constitution.  In response to this, Rakove states that "the original interpretations of 1878-88 could yield nothing more than reasonable explanations and predictions of what the Constitution would mean."  Furthermore, James Madison acknowledged that interpretations of the Constitution would ultimately depend on the circumstances and events which would unfold in the future.
The setting in which Rakove presents his findings on the validity of using "original intent" is the events of the drafting, debate and ratification of the Constitution.  Readers will find this information both informative and useful in understanding the history of the document.  The discussion of all the compromises which took place during those months in Philadelphia sheds some light on the question of why the Constitution included slavery in essence, but not in word.  Rakove also includes brief synopses of the ratification process in the various state legislatures.
I agree with the assessment by Stanley N. Katz that the book "will probably disappoint . . . originalists."  Rakove succeeds in making a compelling argument against relying on "original intent" to interpret the Constitution.  However, I do not agree that Rakove also disappoints "advocates of a living Constitution."  While the author does discuss James Madison's use or "original intent" in arguing against a broad or loose interpretation of the Constitution, he does provide proof that Madison's actions were also politically motivated.  As a believer in the concept of "a living Constitution", I was not disappointed by Rakove's book.