On authorial intent
Biblical studies and constitutional law are the only two fields I have encountered which deal with the concept of authorial intent. In particular, the Heller case which was handed down this morning relies some on the concept of the intent of the founding fathers concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I believe we can find, with reasonable certainty, what the people who wrote and ratified the amendment understood those words to mean. It is interesting to note, however, that the version ratified by congress differs in terms of punctuation and capitalization from the version ratified by the states. Though it does not seem this is a case of life imitating “eats, shoots, and leaves.”
What interests me more is the concept of multiple authorship. If we are trying to find the meaning of text which was fashioned by consensus, is it really possible to say there is one valid meaning? Typically such a matter is settled by an appeal to authorial intent, but things become more complex when there are multiple authors. How can the intents of many be combined into one meaning which must then be used in decided a legal matter? Whose intents are to be considered? There is in this case quite a lot of information about what various founders thought of this issue. But what about those whose intent is lost to us?
Pragmatically speaking, the law means what the Supreme Court says it means. They may appeal (convincingly or otherwise) to authorial intent, but it is just that. The actually interpretation of the laws lies with today’s bench, and that is where the power lies. I wonder what would happen if Justice Scalia wrote a majority opinion which said “US citizens have a right to bear firearms because that is what the 2nd amendment means,” without any reference to intent.
It is a strange thing to be a person of the book.
