the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and that was that". This remained until the "Civil War Amendments" were passed in 1865 and 1868. It was Justice Brennan’s opinion that it was then that the Constitution could be "interpreted to require application of the first eight amendments to the states." Barron v. Baltimore was also an excellent example of judicial restraint or original intent. Marshall interpreted the language of the 5th Amendment exactly as the framers had intended it - the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, believed "original intent" to be the best method for interpretation of the Constitution. He supported that belief with the following statement made by Justice Story:In construing the Constitution of the United States, we are in the first instance to consider, what are its nature and objects, its scope and design, as apparent from the structure of the instrument, viewed as a whole and also viewed in its component parts. Where its words are plain, clear and determinate, they require no interpretation. …Where the words admit of two senses, each of which conformable to general usage, that sense is to be adopted, which without departing from the literal import of the words, best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design of the instrument.The concept of original intent or judicial restraint was exhibited by Marshall in other cases. In Marbury, Marshall’s opinion warned that the Constitution limited not only judicial power, but also executive and legislative. And in McCulloch, Marshall reminded "judges never to forget it is a constitution they are expounding." Marshall, along with Meese, believed the Constitution was "intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crisis of human affairs." He did not, however, feel that it was a "changeable thing". Marshall’s interpretation was not tha...
