Blunders of the Founding Fathers; C. LaDow

It would be well to ask what basic errors the founding fathers made in that instrument. Even if the errors were erased, the danger would still arise that scamps and the ignorant would manage to di lute its purposes; however, era sure of the most obvious mistakes in its construction and early exe cution could remove some of the opportunities for the tragic dis tortion of our basic law which has ensued. The basis of any law is its in tent, which existed in the meeting of minds of its promulgators. To maintain otherwise is to allow that any judge may interpret its intention to suit his own notions. Neither our Constitution, nor the legislatures for which it provided, were designed for such futile pur pose. Its ratification signified binding agreement with the Con vention's intent by all parties to our government. Provision for amendment was intended to allow 95 96 THE FREEMAN February for correction of inevitable over sights, such matters as we here address ourselves to; not to alter the fundamental purposes and spirit of the document. To hold otherwise. is, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, in Marbury vs. Ma,dison, to render the Con situation "an absurd attempt to limit a power in itself illimitable."

A contract means what its signato ries intended it to mean. Sacred ness in the intent of contracts was reiterated in the Dartmouth College case. The Declaration of Independence So many persons, both learned and unlearned, prefer to cite The Declaration of Independence as the spiritual source of the Consti tution that it may be well to in spect its key intent. The words, "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal . . ." are the most often quoted, and speakers vie with one another in attributing meanings to, or heaping scorn on, this fine example of rhetoric. Some light can be thrown on the intent of the author of the Declaration by examining Jefferson's original draft. The same passage read: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent ..." Jefferson thus avoided turn ing a noble religious concept into a logical canon. The addition of the qualification of "and indepen dent" clearly implied a firm indi vidualism foreign to many who use this passage to fortify collec tivistic purposes. Not knowing how Jefferson's words came to be altered, one can suspect that it was one of those common disasters of committee work. Anyone who knows the thinking of his peers would suspect that they were in agreement with his original intent, but were probably just word trimming.

How John Locke's "Life, Lib erty, and Property" became "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hap piness" is another matter. J effer son was not a dogged plagiarist, and probably liked the ring of it. It does sound less pedestrian than Locke's bit; but that certainly does not mean that its intent was foreign to its origin. The love that Jefferson bestowed upon Monti cello and all other fine things tells us of his awareness that private property is a considerable essence of happiness. That "and indepen dent" nailed it down. How can one be independent if the right to pri vate property is not sacred? Turning to the Constitutional Convention, the main conflict of opinion was between the Federal ists and Anti-federalists. That the differences of these factions were not ineluctable was shown by their 1975 BLUNDERS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS 97 ability to come up with the docu ment. Later addition of the Bill of Rights, most especially the 9th and 10th Amendments, represent ed satisfactory resolution of their differences. Individual misgivings remained, but the ratification of nine states made the Constitution the law of the land.