tion of specific instances?[1] As the Constitution is not only a well-drafted instrument with few ambiguities but also a short instrument which speaks in very general terms, mere interpretation has been far less difficult than construction.[2] It is through the latter chiefly that the Constitution has been, and still continues to be, developed and expanded. The nature of these expansions will appear from the nature of the Federal government. It is a government of delegated and specified powers. The people have entrusted to it, not the plenitude of their own authority but certain enumerated functions, and its lawful action is limited to these functions. Hence, when the Federal executive does an act, or the Federal legislature passes a law, the question arises — Is the power to do this act or pass this law one of the powers which the people have by the Constitution delegated to their agents? The power may never have been exerted before. It may not be found expressed, in so many words, in the Constitution. Nevertheless it may, upon the true construction of that instrument, taking one clause with another, be held to be therein contained.
- ↑ For example, the question whether an agreement carried out between a State and an individual by a legislative act of a State is a "contract" within the meaning of the prohibition against impairing the obligation of a contract, is a question of interpretation proper, for it turns on the determination of the meaning of the term "contract." The question whether Congress had power to pass an act emancipating the slaves of persons aiding in a rebellion was a question of construction, because the case did not directly arise under any provision of the Constitution, and was apparently not contemplated by the framers thereof. It was a question which had to be solved by considering what the war powers contained in the Constitution might be taken to imply. The question whether the National government has power to issue treasury notes is also a question of construction, because, although this is a case which may possibly have been contemplated when the Constitution was enacted, it is to be determined by ascertaining whether the power "to borrow money" covers this particular method of borrowing. There is no ambiguity about the word "borrow"; the difficulty is to pronounce which out of various methods of borrowing, some of which probably were contemplated, can be properly deemed, on a review of the whole financial attributes and functions of the National government, to be included within the borrowing power. As to the provision restraining States from passing laws impairing the obligation of a contract, see note at the end of this volume on the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward.
- ↑ As the Constitution is deemed to proceed from the People who enacted it, not from the Convention who drafted it, it is regarded for the purposes of interpretation as being the work not of a group of lawyers but of the people themselves. For a useful summary of some of the general rules of constitutional interpretation, see Patterson's Federal Restraints on State Action, pp. 215-217.
