Forrest McDonald's 1985 work entitled Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution has been touted as "the best single volume on the origins of the Constitution." McDonald's stated purpose is to provide a "reasonably comprehensive survey of the complex body of political thought (including history and law and political economy) that went into the framing of the Constitution."
McDonald begins with a brief overview of the situation facing Americans in 1787 and the guiding and limiting considerations facing the framers. He then outlines the origins of the concepts of "rights" and "freedoms" in English constitutional and common law and describes how these principles were applied and evolved on the American continent. Next we are introduced to the systems of political and economic theory that informed the framers' views. Finally, the introductory discussion turns to the lessons of experience learned from 1776 to 1787.
Having set the stage in this way, McDonald introduces us to the framers - their guiding principles, political leanings, and special interests - and guides us through the convention itself, frequently describing individual motions, votes, and committee actions to illustrate how the process of writing the Constitution actually shaped the document. Finally he analyzes the outcomes of the convention, in terms both of the unique, novel structure of the United States government and of the consequences of that structure on itself over time.
My Thoughts
My key takeaway from this book is that the U.S. Constitution was formed through a grueling political process. I guess I had always thought of the Convention as somewhat of a tea party where everyone was polite and more or less agreed on what the government should look like. This book revealed to me how many ways the Constitution might have never happened at all, how many wildly different views the framers had, and that special interests, political maneuvering, and some downright dirty tricks in the Committee of Style shaped our governing document.
I also gained an appreciation for how oversimplified our discourse about "original intent" tends to be. I'm a pretty strict constructionist: words have meanings, and reason puts boundaries on how far we can stretch those meanings before they break. However, I now understand that the Convention was replete with verbal sparring, walk-outs, and narrowly carried motions. When a motion did manage to pass, the framers didn't always agree on its implications, and what ended up in the Constitution itself didn't always reflect what had been voted upon. Federalists and Anti-federalists would claim philosophical victory by interpreting identical sections of the constitution to support their positions. So understanding the "original intent" of the framers, therefore, is not just an exercise in reading and interpreting the words in the Constitution, but understanding the many intellectual, philosophical, political, economic, legal, and religous forces that formed the context in which the framers worked and out of which the Constitution was created.
