The debate on the Constitution did not end with its ratification, nor with the amending process, nor with the dawn of the 21st century.

Now, Michael I. Meyerson, who teaches constitutional law and American legal history at the University of Baltimore, wades into the thicket with "Liberty's Blueprint."

The first part describes how and why Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, with some assistance from John Jay, wrote the celebrated "Federalist Papers" during the winter of 1787-1788. The second part suggests how we should read (and not read) the "Federalist Papers" 220 years later.

The 85 newspaper essays that make up the "Federalist Papers" were written in hope of persuading the convention of New York to ratify the proposed new Constitution. Published in two volumes, they immediately became and have remained the most important explanation of the purposes and meaning of the unamended Constitution.

Hamilton, a New Yorker, and Madison, a Virginian, were the first great authorities on the meaning of the Constitution, but for different reasons each was disappointed in the document that the Constitutional Convention submitted to the states for ratification. Within a few years of its ratification, they formed the nuclei of two competing political factions that differed on how to implement the Constitution and on what parts of it meant.

The second part of "Liberty's Blueprint" is a well-written and well-informed discussion of the implications of the fact that two of the most influential founders disagreed about government under the Constitution. What, then, are the lessons of the "Federalist Papers"? What, in fact, does the Constitution mean?

Meyerson's answers form a shot across the bow of a very recent development in constitutional interpretation, called originalism. A good many politicians and judges now believe that the Constitution should be and can be interpreted according to its obvious original meaning. It is an attractive and very difficult position to maintain, because most of the authors did not leave us accounts of what they intended, and the two main authorities differed with each other on fundamentally important constitutional provisions that were expressed in imprecise language.

In many important points, the original intention of the Constitution is not at all clear, any more than the meanings of portions of Scripture are always self-evidently clear. In politics, and sometimes in courts, people want the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, and they can often find language in the document or in the "Federalist Papers" to support their interpretations. But just as often, support for differing meanings can be found in the same sources.

The debate between originalists and everybody else will continue. This book is an important contribution to understanding the nature of the debate and also a strong criticism of the originalist position.
Brent Tarter is an editor of the "Dictionary of Virginia Biography" at the Library of Virginia.