What do you think?
Rate this book
Framed for Posterity: The Enduring Philosophy of the Constitution
In Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall defined the Constitution as "a superior, paramount law," one that superseded the laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. What makes it paramount? This book sets out to recover the enduring principles, purposes, and meanings that inform the founders' charter and continue to offer us political guidance more than 200 years later. In so doing it steers a middle course between "originalists" who constrict interpretation to constitutional specifics and "relativists" who adapt the Constitution to the moment by ignoring original meaning. "Original intent," Ralph Ketcham argues, is best discerned by a study of the political climate that nourished the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and, more particularly, by understanding the broader meanings, intentions, and purposes of the framers.
To recover this full context of political thinking, Ketcham delves not only into the meaning of the documents but also into the connotations of the framers' vocabulary, the reasoning behind both accepted and rejected propositions, arguments for and against, and unstated assumptions. In his analysis the fundamental or enduring principles are republicanism, liberty, public good, and federalism (as part of the broader doctrine of balance of powers).
Ketcham answers convincingly those who question the relevance to modern constitutional interpretation of the finding that the founders were both republican and liberal. He asserts that the rights-protecting character of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights derived from the founders' belief that private rights depended upon active government and public virtue. In other words, private liberties rested on the citizenry's right to self-governance.
James Madison sought to ensure a system of government that would serve as guardian "both of public Good and of private rights." In providing an interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that incorporates both republican and liberal perspectives, Ketcham should find a wide readership among politically active citizens, lawyers, judges, and those who teach and study constitutional law and political theory.
To recover this full context of political thinking, Ketcham delves not only into the meaning of the documents but also into the connotations of the framers' vocabulary, the reasoning behind both accepted and rejected propositions, arguments for and against, and unstated assumptions. In his analysis the fundamental or enduring principles are republicanism, liberty, public good, and federalism (as part of the broader doctrine of balance of powers).
Ketcham answers convincingly those who question the relevance to modern constitutional interpretation of the finding that the founders were both republican and liberal. He asserts that the rights-protecting character of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights derived from the founders' belief that private rights depended upon active government and public virtue. In other words, private liberties rested on the citizenry's right to self-governance.
James Madison sought to ensure a system of government that would serve as guardian "both of public Good and of private rights." In providing an interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that incorporates both republican and liberal perspectives, Ketcham should find a wide readership among politically active citizens, lawyers, judges, and those who teach and study constitutional law and political theory.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 1993
16 people want to read
About the author
Ralph Louis Ketcham
16 books35 followersA specialist in American constitutional and political theory in the early republic and a former editor of the papers of James Madison, Ralph Ketcham was Maxwell Professor of Citizenship and Public Affairs emeritus at Syracuse University. Ketcham attended the Coast Guard Academy, Allegheny College, and Colgate University before earning his doctorate in Ameican Studies from the Maxwell School in 1956. Prior to his appointment to Syracuse in 1963 Ketcham taught at the University of Chicago and Yale University, and he taught at Syracuse until his retirement in 1997.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 27, 2013
Prof. Ketcham posits in order to fully understand the 'original intent' of the 'founding fathers' one must be knowledgeable about where they were coming from. It was the age of enlightenment. The basic premise is that government exists to promote the public good. George Mason insisted Congress "... ought to attend to the rights of every class of people. James Wilson followed by hoping wanted to include many powers of government in the 'federal pyramid' to give it "as broad a base as possible. James Madison opined "the great fabric to be raised would be more stable and durable, if it should rest on the solid foundation of the people." The first principle of the Constitution is the practice of self-government, government by consent. The founders supposed it could be improved and the future reveal refinement they had not anticipated.
The founding fathers thought the trust people could place in their representatives was the surest guardian against invasion of their rights. They hoped the populace would be well-educated, able and, most importantly, willing to think for themselves. Perhaps this was a basis for the idea that the number of sects precluded any majority to oppress and persecute the rest.
While many forget the preambles to our country's basic documents, the author contends that is where you will find their real intent. Therein lie their expressions of the general principles, influenced by enlightenment philosophy, which provide their original intent.
The founders were taught to look at government in Aristotelian terms "the purpose of all good government was the general well-being and constructive improvement of the polity." Ketcham notes the Second Amendment is tied to public purpose, 'a well-regulated militia' as opposed to the individual right to bear arms just because one wants to.
An earlier book I reviewed, I. Bernard Cohen's "Science and the Founding Fathers", provides a glimpse into the scientific training, practice and writings of four of the founding fathers. A general interest in science was one of the attributes of a gentlemen of the enlightenment. One may assume other 'gentlemen' of that era had similar training and thus understood the analogies and metaphors used during the debates and 'discussions' that went into the development of the basic documents of this country. Though the author does not discuss Constitutional issues per se, one can deduce that with their understanding of science they would have designed a document that would adapt to its time.
When we look at 'original intent' it behooves us to look at the contemporary philosophies and society which affected the writers of our country's basic documents. They lived in a time when great positive changes were taking place in science, government and society and they were part of the change. I find it hard to believe they would want to have their work thought of as being carved in stone and unable to be adapted to the times.
The founding fathers thought the trust people could place in their representatives was the surest guardian against invasion of their rights. They hoped the populace would be well-educated, able and, most importantly, willing to think for themselves. Perhaps this was a basis for the idea that the number of sects precluded any majority to oppress and persecute the rest.
While many forget the preambles to our country's basic documents, the author contends that is where you will find their real intent. Therein lie their expressions of the general principles, influenced by enlightenment philosophy, which provide their original intent.
The founders were taught to look at government in Aristotelian terms "the purpose of all good government was the general well-being and constructive improvement of the polity." Ketcham notes the Second Amendment is tied to public purpose, 'a well-regulated militia' as opposed to the individual right to bear arms just because one wants to.
An earlier book I reviewed, I. Bernard Cohen's "Science and the Founding Fathers", provides a glimpse into the scientific training, practice and writings of four of the founding fathers. A general interest in science was one of the attributes of a gentlemen of the enlightenment. One may assume other 'gentlemen' of that era had similar training and thus understood the analogies and metaphors used during the debates and 'discussions' that went into the development of the basic documents of this country. Though the author does not discuss Constitutional issues per se, one can deduce that with their understanding of science they would have designed a document that would adapt to its time.
When we look at 'original intent' it behooves us to look at the contemporary philosophies and society which affected the writers of our country's basic documents. They lived in a time when great positive changes were taking place in science, government and society and they were part of the change. I find it hard to believe they would want to have their work thought of as being carved in stone and unable to be adapted to the times.
April 28, 2013
In the tug-of-war over the constitution between the those who argue for a “living constitution” and the interpreters who hew close to the text with “strict construction,” it’s easy to lose sight of the document itself. Ralph Ketcham’s wise counsel brings the constitution back into focus. He reunites the founders’ intentions with their document,giving us the context of their philosophy. Ketcham restores to our view the founder’s belief in the public good and in unifying personal liberty with political freedom. (Uniting Locke’s modern idea of individual rights with Aristotle’s ideas of civic republicanism and the government acting to create the good life.)
Thus we should see that Madison & Co. supported the Bill of Rights not solely for the benefit of the individual, but because personal liberty would allow political freedom to flourish, and, in turn, that political freedom would encourage personal liberty. Uniting these two ideas, Ketcham says, is the “American contribution.”
As he did in the classroom when I was lucky to have him as my teacher more than 30 years ago, Ketcham preaches the middle way. He has a great gift for equanimity, a quality in short supply these days.
His advice on how to read the constitution is refreshing. Don’t read it as a 200-year-old injunction, a political procedural. And don’t see it as a loose rule of thumb we can overrule. It was seen by the founders as “higher law” that left much unsaid so the people would work out the details. It’s “higher law” that needs constant application to new issues.
Thus we should see that Madison & Co. supported the Bill of Rights not solely for the benefit of the individual, but because personal liberty would allow political freedom to flourish, and, in turn, that political freedom would encourage personal liberty. Uniting these two ideas, Ketcham says, is the “American contribution.”
As he did in the classroom when I was lucky to have him as my teacher more than 30 years ago, Ketcham preaches the middle way. He has a great gift for equanimity, a quality in short supply these days.
His advice on how to read the constitution is refreshing. Don’t read it as a 200-year-old injunction, a political procedural. And don’t see it as a loose rule of thumb we can overrule. It was seen by the founders as “higher law” that left much unsaid so the people would work out the details. It’s “higher law” that needs constant application to new issues.
July 17, 2009
Fabulous look into the writing of the Constitution. What set's this work apart is how well Ketcham delved into the wording of the document and his explanations and analysis of the understanding of the terminology of the day. This is a must read for those interested in the Constitution, but especially for Originalists.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews