[flaja]

The issue of the Constitution’s original intent is as old as the document itself, and determining original intent has always been a most difficult task.

Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings? And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?

What about Edmund Randolph, who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Convention, then refused to sign the document because he though the central government would have too much power and then ended up supporting ratification before serving in Washington's cabinet? What was Randolph's original intent?

What about Alexander Hamilton? He spoke only briefly at the Convention and then went home because New York's other two delegates always outvoted him. But Hamilton then returned to the Convention after those other delegates had left the Convention themselves. Hamilton played only a little role in writing the Constitution, but he had a major influence on how the Constitution was implemented.

And what about James Madison? Both Hamilton and Madison were authors of the Federalist Papers, but once the government was set up they joined opposing political factions- Hamilton a Federalist in favor of a strong government, Madison an Antifederalist in favor of a limited government.

And then there's George Washington who refused to exercise any presidential leadership (while also usurping the power of the federal courts) by refusing to veto any legislation he did not personally think was unconstitutional no matter how much he personally disagreed with the legislation.

So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates. But, the Journal was not published until 1818 and Madison's notes were not published until 1840. That means the nation did not know what the Framers really wanted the Constitution to mean for the first 50 years of the document's existence.

The Constitution itself is little help. The Framers left the Constitution intentionally vague in many places. For example, what does a term of "good behavior" mean? Does it mean a federal judge has lifetime tenure as long as he does not violate statutory law? Or does it mean, as many libertarians and a few right-wing types believe, that the judge can serve as long as he does not issue a ruling that certain segments of the population object to?

Also, what is cruel and unusual punishment? Why was hanging acceptable at one time, but not now?

And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." Just who is the Lord that the Constitution acknowledges?