Original intent.

It’s what judges are told seek out to settle tricky constitutional questions.

Want to know what the founders really meant about our right to free speech, to bear arms, or to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure when they ratified the U.S. Constitution in the summer of 1788? It’s easy, find that original intent.

Conservatives are big on original intent. As the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said of judges, according to his conception of original intent, their only job should be “to call balls and strikes.”

Of course, the Constitution has a lot to say about many things. It specifies what the separate but equal roles of Congress, the Chief Executive (president) and the Judicial branches are, and what they can and can’t do. The usage of “president” to designate the heads of state of republics all over the world today can be traced directly to the U.S. Constitution.

So, what did our classically-trained, learned founders originally intend the office of president to be? Let’s start with the word “president” itself. It derives from the Latin “praesidere,” meaning “to preside over, sit in front of.” That is, the first sense of the word in the new nation referred to an officer who sits at the head of a gathering, and ensures that proceedings are conducted properly.

Not exactly a powerhouse. Early on, it was even seen as inappropriate or “unseemly” to campaign for such a weak office, or to be perceived as campaigning for it. The presidency as envisioned by our first president, George Washington, squared with the ideas above. It was to be more like a simple administrative or clerical position. He was cautious about setting precedents, understanding that what he did would shape the future of the office. Yet, Washington approached the role with formality.

The formality and perceived insignificance of the early days are gone. A major transformation over time saw the office evolve from a less powerful, formalized position to a powerful, prominent, and campaigning-focused role.

Now consider something called “The Unitary Executive Theory,” with its roots in the aggressive assertions of presidential power in the 20th century, particularly, during the Reagan administration. Broadly speaking, strong versions of the theory hold that the president has complete control over all officials in the executive branch; a weak version holds that Congress can significantly limit the president’s authority, despite residing in a separate branch of government.

Proponents of original intent assert that from the nation’s beginning, the presidency was to be supreme. Critics hold otherwise. Their concern is that the theory could lead to a more authoritarian presidency, where a president bypasses Congress and the judiciary, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability within the executive branch.

The theory continues to be debated in legal and academic circles, particularly in relation to the scope of presidential power over independent agencies and the extent to which Congress can limit that power.

The thing that gets me is that fervent believers in the concept of original intent seem not to recognize that the original intent for the presidency was nothing like what we see today, and demand its actions be considered in our own “dawn’s early light.”

Robert Whale can be reached at robert.whale@soundpublishing.com.