The Constitution's Original Interpretation Of The Constitution

The United States of America is a shining example of a country that is rooted in the principle of liberty. Liberty is the power to act as one pleases free from the restrictions of others. Liberty is the ultimate principle which Americans must adhere to. However, the United states has fallen away from its founding principles over time. It is losing the spirit of its founding. This dangerous transformation has affected the country in many detrimental ways that are apparent today. The way for America is to return to its founding principles is through the Constitution. If the United states of America has fallen away from its founding Constitutional principles, then its people are and will be subjected to the tyranny of government overreach. The
The first is originalism, the view that the Constitution's original meaning should be followed. The second is that the Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes over time based on the interpretation of the government and the people. Of the two the most logical is that of originalism, specifically original meaning of the words written in the Constitution. This is because originalism requires that the words of the Constitution retain their definitions when they were ratified. The Constitution is like a contract, and it delegates the roles of the federal government. If it means what the judiciary interprets it should mean than it is nothing more than a blank document that holds little sway because it’s original authority of ratification is ignored. As said by Thomas Jefferson, “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”(2) It therefore means what it means at its writing and not what the judiciary believes it should
They believe it to mean that congress has the power to enact laws regulating any group or individual inside the nation if they in any way affect interstate commerce as defined by all branches of commercial intercourse. This include both the manufacture and distribution of goods. A good example of this is shown in the Wickard v. Filburn supreme court decision in that a farmer who grew wheat on his own land and used it only for his own consumption, was subject to federal regulations because of the lack of commerce due to his sole usership of said goods and services.(3) This is a ridiculous notion because it effectively gives Congress the power to regulate anything if there is even a minute way in which it may affect commerce. The relevant part of the commerce clause states that “The Congress shall have Power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.”(4) No one can logically assume that the congress was given, with this clause, the authority to regulate citizens in any way it so pleased as long as it could find justification in that it in some minute way affected interstate commerce. Indeed, any regulation could theoretically be passed based on this interpretation no matter how ridiculous or tyrannical. The most important point regarding the interpretation of the clause is that