|
It seems to me that interpretation is needed in any text. The idea that anything comes with a ready made interpretation is a bit strange. I hadn't thought about it in these terms, but Roachboy makes a good point in that the strict constructionist view is a bit like evangelical views of the bible as revealed word. As with the bible, the contradictions alone would make it necessary to impose some sort of interpretation on the constitution.
But that is an old argument that need not be rehashed. The more interesting question with regards to what the founders "meant" is "so what?" Unless they were somehow some form of holy men delivering universal truths from some sort of omniscient god, it seems to me that there is no reason why their word should be treated as sacred.
|