Revolutionary Contributions To The Constitution

One of the defining revolutionary contributions to the idea of Constitution was, firstly, the necessity to codify it in writing, but also to organize its structuring and framing so that it “operates as supreme fundamental law,” since it embodies and is instituted by popular sovereignty (Rakove 104). Another revolutionary contribution stems from the Massachusetts Constitution. It separates the writing of the constitution from the typical legislature to a separate body, wherein “framing by a special convention and ratification by the people” frames a Constitution in order to capture “the people as a constituent power,” as Professor Dowd argued (Rakove 106). This influenced the understanding that the Constitution would, therefore, be the “supreme

While a strict constructionist would argue that the words penned dominate all interpretation of the Constitution. The late Antonin Scalia, a well-known textualist or originalist Supreme Court Justice, wrote once of his disdain for strict constructionist, by arguing, “A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means” (Scalia 98). Within the Rokove text, many of my classmates have already mentioned the “necessary and proper.” This part of the clause’s history gets at the differing approaches mentioned above in the debate over, for example, a national bank, since framers Madison and Jefferson argued from a strict constructionist perspective, that is, it wasn’t explicitly written and therefore lacked “explicit authority.” The interpretation of framers Hamilton and Washington argued that they had an authority through the clause’s original intent. An additional example that may come in the near future is the penning in the Constitution of “He” when referring to Article II, Section I. Did the framers pen it in a strict constructionist way or with the intent that “He” would not limit