Original Intent Quotes
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote a piece criticizing the rationale behind the forced ouster of Times reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr., but it was never published. Stephens told colleagues the column was killed by publisher A.G. Sulzberger. Since then, the piece has circulated among Times staffers and others — and it was from one of them, not Stephens himself, that The Post obtained and published it.
The Chief Justice at the time was an ultra-conservative judge, who together with his 8 colleagues—all conservative—had blocked much of the democratic and progressive legislation that the Congress had passed. FDR had a much different legal and philosophical view of the Constitution than the Chief Justice, and the court would declare much of his New Deal legislation, passed in the emergency of the Great Depression, unconstitutional. Almost all of those “unconstitutional” things were years later passed again and this time a more modern court found they were Constitutional.
This quotation is particularly important because it summarizes one of two opposite schools or thought regarding judicial interpretation of the Constitution that politicians have been arguing about since the Supreme Court first sat. The other is Original Intent where only the original intentions of the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution should be considered—assuming that it can be determined.
Justice Holmes was explaining the shortcoming of taking words, spoken or written, literally and not looking further to try and determine the actual intent. This becomes a major legal issue when trying to determine the original intent of legislators of the framers of the Constitution. We all have written things which when interpreted to by others end up with a meaning different from what we intended. In the legislative process with the negotiations over wording, committees, and tradeoffs, it is often very hard to determine what the originators had in mind for in many situations they disagreed about the issue but ended up compromising on some specific language which might represent a consensus or might not even represent anyone’s view.
