Disputes over interpretation of the Constitution were common during the days of the early Republic, even between those who had been at the convention. Two main reasons for this are:

1. The Constitution was inherently a product of compromise between delegates with different goals / worldviews. It would be hard for Madison to claim that 'we' intended anything with such a diverse group.

2. The secrecy of the convention. According to Madison's notes, the official rule was "That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published, or communicated, without leave."

With that rule in place afterward it became very difficult to assert intent, and even in making such an argument, one could be accused of breaking the secrecy rule. John P. Kaminski summarizes several such disputes in his Essay on the secrecy of the convention:

James Madison, in a February 1791 debate in the first federal Congress over chartering a national bank, referred to the intention of the Constitutional Convention against such incorporations. Former Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (also serving in the first federal Congress) criticized Madison for using his memory of the debates in the Constitutional Convention as authority for subsequent political guidance. Madison agreed with Gerry that it was probably best not to divulge the proceedings of the Convention. Five years later in 1796, Madison criticized President Washington for citing the Convention’s journal in one of his messages to Congress in justifying his interpretation of the Constitution’s provision for negotiating and ratifying treaties.

One of the best examples of a dispute over interpretation between founding fathers is Hamilton and Madison's split over the necessary and proper clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18). Madison and Hamilton had both attended the Convention, and were both influential in shaping the final document. Additionally, afterward they collaborated in the publishing of the Federalist Papers, encouraging ratification of the Constitution by the states.

Despite this political alliance, Hamilton and Madison soon found themselves on opposite sides of the First Party System. Regarding the necessary and proper clause, Hamilton favored a broad interpretation, arguing that the clause gave the Federal government broad powers to pass laws in addition to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution (Federalist 33). Hamilton used the clause as a Constitutional justification for his economic programs, such as the First Bank of the United States. Madison and the Democratic-Republicans countered that such an interpretation of the clause could be used to grant the Federal Government nearly unlimited power. (Some historians, such as Ron Chernow, argue that Madison and Jefferson were making a cynical argument here. As they did not hold Federal power, they were attempting to limit it. Jefferson and Madison would favor a looser intrepretation during Democratic-Republican administrations).

Sources:

• The Constitution

• Federalist 33

• [Kaminski, John P. Secrecy and the Constitutional Convention, University of Wisconsin 2005] (http://csac.history.wisc.edu/secrecy_essay.pdf)

• Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

• Madison's notes on the Convention