“It is unreasonable to confine ourselves strictly to the text of the Constitution. We should interpret the Constitution broadly, to allow the federal government to exercise powers we need it to exercise, even if they aren’t actually listed in that document.”

In response to a claim such as this one, Thomas Jefferson would certainly be astounded; yet it is under this very pretense that many today justify judiciary interpretation of the Constitution, rather than seeking to pursue the original intent of those who authored it. It was, in fact, the intent of the Founding Fathers to strictly limit the powers of the federal government, as indicated in the Bill of Rights–particularly the 10th Amendment, which states that any rights not delegated to the central government directly are reserved by the individual states. The sole purpose of having a written constitution is that, rather than simply operating in accordance with tradition, having such a document sets in stone the exact limits of the federal government.

Jefferson is quoted as having addressed this very concern with misinterpretation and assumptions behind the original intent of the Constitution, stating the following in an 1803 letter to a Virginia senator: “I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.” The implication here is that, rather than misinterpreting the document, granting virtually unlimited power to those tasked with interpreting the law–the federal government, namely–Jefferson would prefer that it be properly amended.

The concept of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document” refers to the idea that it can and should be interpreted at the discretion of the judicial branch–essentially enabling it to interpret the Constitution in accordance with views that promote the central government. It is important to realize the fundamental issue with this idea: the Founding Fathers themselves had once been the victims of such a constitution–that is, that of Great Britain. There being no written constitution, the British Parliament was at liberty to interpret the law according to its own will. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that the American Revolution was itself a war against a living constitution.

Foreseeing the future establishment of false precedents through skewed interpretations of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers in fact implemented means by which the document could be updated if it were to become necessary–namely, the amendment process. Those who believe in a living constitution, however, would rather not go to such great trouble to legally achieve this; they find it much easier to freely interpret the document in whatever way they deem necessary given the circumstances. Foreshadowing this very issue, Alexander Hamilton wrote the following in the Federalist papers:

“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding…and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”