Why Do We Reinterpret Political Documents With Modern Ideals?

Imagine attending a theater production of Hamlet, only to hear Prince Hamlet declare, “To text, or not to text, that is the question.” You’d immediately recognize the absurdity. We don’t reinterpret Shakespeare’s works to align with modern technology or culture because doing so would distort his genius. His plays are preserved in the language and understanding of his time, ensuring his intent is honored. So why do we not afford the same respect to our founding documents, particularly the United States Constitution?

This is the paradox of modern constitutional interpretation. We revere historical texts like Shakespeare’s plays or Alexandre Dumas’s novels, insisting on their original meanings and contexts. Yet, when it comes to the Constitution—a document of unparalleled significance for our governance and liberty—there is an increasing tendency to reinterpret its provisions based on contemporary ideals rather than the original understanding of its framers.

The Role of Noah Webster and the 1828 Dictionary

Noah Webster, a contemporary of the Founding Fathers and an ardent supporter of American independence, understood the importance of language in preserving the original meaning of critical documents. His 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was explicitly designed to define words as they were commonly understood in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Webster believed that a shared understanding of language was essential to maintaining the Constitution’s integrity.

Webster himself explained his purpose, writing: “Language is the expression of ideas, and if the people of one country cannot preserve an identity of ideas, they cannot retain an identity of language.” By creating a dictionary that reflected the precise meanings of words at the time of the Constitution’s drafting, Webster provided a tool for future generations to interpret the text accurately and resist the temptation to impose modern definitions.

Yet today, this invaluable resource is often ignored in favor of fluid, evolving definitions that shift with modern cultural and political trends. Such reinterpretation undermines the Constitution’s stability and, by extension, the liberties it was designed to protect.

The Problem with Modern Reinterpretation

James Madison, widely regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," warned against the dangers of straying from the document's original meaning. In The Federalist No. 62, he cautioned, “It will be of little avail to the people…if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” This principle applies equally to constitutional interpretation. If the Constitution can mean whatever modern interpreters wish it to mean, it ceases to serve as a stable foundation for law and governance.

The Constitution’s text was carefully chosen, debated, and ratified by men who understood the weight of their words. They anticipated change and provided a mechanism for amendment—not reinterpretation—to address new circumstances. This ensures that changes reflect the will of the people through a deliberate, democratic process rather than the whims of judges, politicians, or scholars imposing their modern ideologies on the text.

The Double Standard of Interpretation

Consider how we approach literature. If a modern critic claimed that Dumas’s The Three Musketeers was actually a metaphor for cryptocurrency, they would be laughed out of academia. Literary interpretation recognizes the importance of historical context. Why, then, do constitutional scholars and judges feel justified in projecting modern values onto the Constitution, as though its words were untethered from the time in which they were written?

The answer lies in the allure of convenience and power. Modern reinterpretation allows those in authority to bypass the amendment process and impose their preferred policies without securing the consent of the governed. For example, expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause have justified federal interventions that the framers would never have countenanced. This undermines the Constitution’s role as a restraint on government power and transforms it into a tool for justifying virtually any action.

The Original Meaning Is the Only Meaning

Thomas Jefferson, in an 1823 letter to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, wrote: “On every question of construction let us 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.” Jefferson understood that fidelity to the original meaning is essential for preserving the Constitution’s integrity.

Applying modern ideals to the Constitution is akin to rewriting Shakespeare to make his plays more “relatable.” Doing so would not only misrepresent the original work but also rob it of its power and timelessness. The Constitution, like great literature, is a product of its time, and its meaning must be understood in that context. That does not make it irrelevant—it makes it enduring.

The framers built a document rooted in universal principles: liberty, limited government, and the rule of law. These principles are as applicable today as they were in 1787, but only if we honor their original intent. Words like “commerce,” “militia,” and “welfare” had specific meanings when they were written, and those meanings should guide us today. Noah Webster’s dictionary stands as a critical resource to help us recover and preserve those meanings.

A Call to Restore Originalism

If we fail to preserve the original meaning of the Constitution, we risk losing the liberties it was designed to protect. Every reinterpretation erodes its foundation, turning it from a bulwark of limited government into a pliable instrument of power.

The solution is simple but challenging: we must return to the original understanding of the Constitution. This requires reading the Federalist Papers, studying the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and educating ourselves and others about the founders’ intent. As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, advised, “Every member of the state ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country…By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.”

Just as we preserve the works of Shakespeare and Dumas in their original forms, we must do the same with the Constitution. Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary provides a roadmap for this endeavor, grounding us in the language of the founding era. By honoring the original meanings of the Constitution’s words, we ensure it remains a steadfast guardian of liberty, not a plaything for those who seek to expand power at the expense of our freedoms.