# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant (Volume 1)

## FrankRep

*New book from the Tenth Amendment Center:*


*The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant (Volume 1)*




Some people—including the former law instructor who now serves as President of the United States—believe that it is impossible to reconstruct the Constitution’s original meaning.

As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect.

Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution’s provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law.

We will never be absolutely certain of the complete meaning of every constitutional clause. But we can reconstruct most of the original Constitution’s meaning with clarity and confidence.

from the Introduction, by Robert G. Natelson

----------


## muzzled dogg

anyone read it?

----------


## romacox

I have been reading older documents to reconstruct American History and the Constitution.  One of the best books I have found on the subject is a book written by Judge Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, born three years after the Declaration of Independence, and who's father fought in the Revolution) He takes each clause,  tells its history, and meaning.

It makes it literally come alive. The book is called "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States;" Containing a Brief Commentary on Every Clause. I highly recommend it.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> anyone read it?


this

----------


## Pericles

> I have been reading older documents to reconstruct American History and the Constitution.  One of the best books I have found on the subject is a book written by Judge Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, born three years after the Declaration of Independence, and who's father fought in the Revolution) He takes each clause,  tells its history, and meaning.
> 
> It makes it literally come alive. The book is called "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States;" Containing a Brief Commentary on Every Clause. I highly recommend it.


A View of the Constitution (1825) by William Rawle is a good companion work, as he also gives comparisons between the operation of the Constitution and Confederation.

An example:

The inability of the Confederation to enforce the treaties made by them       was severely felt. Many state laws which had been passed, during, or       shortly after the war of the revolution, were inconsistent with some of       the articles of the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and that power,       complaining of injuries sustained in consequence thereof, postponed the       fulfilment of the treaty in some points on their part. The inadequacy of       the powers of congress to enforce it were then sensibly felt, and a       serious declaration that a treaty, in virtue of the confederation, was       part of the law of the land and obligatory on the several legislatures,       was transmitted to all the states, with an urgent recommendation that the       states themselves would repeal all those acts and parts of acts that were       repugnant to the treaty. In this       respect the want of a judicial power was strongly perceived.

After the adoption of the Constitution, its retrospective effect upon       the opposing laws of a state, passed even before the treaty, was speedily       and fully established by the Supreme Court of the United States.

http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> A View of the Constitution (1825) by William Rawle is a good companion work, as he also gives comparisons between the operation of the Constitution and Confederation.
> 
> An example:
> 
> The inability of the Confederation to enforce the treaties made by them       was severely felt. Many state laws which had been passed, during, or       shortly after the war of the revolution, were inconsistent with some of       the articles of the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and that power,       complaining of injuries sustained in consequence thereof, postponed the       fulfilment of the treaty in some points on their part. The inadequacy of       the powers of congress to enforce it were then sensibly felt, and a       serious declaration that a treaty, in virtue of the confederation, was       part of the law of the land and obligatory on the several legislatures,       was transmitted to all the states, with an urgent recommendation that the       states themselves would repeal all those acts and parts of acts that were       repugnant to the treaty. In this       respect the want of a judicial power was strongly perceived.
> 
> After the adoption of the Constitution, its retrospective effect upon       the opposing laws of a state, passed even before the treaty, was speedily       and fully established by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm


Federalist propagandaaaaaaaa!!!! :collins:

----------


## Pericles

> Federalist propagandaaaaaaaa!!!! :collins:


 BTW, Rawle recognized the right of secession:

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the       people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the       power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States       is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several       states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to       perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from       the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority.       There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state       constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it       would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous,       ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to       exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or       causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a       majority of their constituents.


          But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more       certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.       The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require       correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general       government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied       secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be       conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in       respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest       some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare       an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the       secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to       take place on that event, and in such case  as in the case of an       unconditional secession,  the previous ligament with the Union,       would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people       is the only moving power.

----------

