One of the things I like about the Constitution is that you won’t understand it properly if you approach it lazily. You have to understand the history and the language usage of the time, because that original meaning is the fixed point on the journey. It takes some effort. And so, Klein will, doubtless, remain stymied.
KLEIN: Yes, it’s a gimmick. [Laughs] I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done. So, I wouldn’t expect to much coming out of this.*
Well of course it’s difficult to understand, when you come at it from a “living document” point of view whereby it can mean one thing today and something else entirely tomorrow (the bankrupt interpretive philosophy that allows the deviation in meaning from person to person that Klein cites—fine strategy, create the confusion then complain that it’s confusing). Much like a compass or map, you’ll never be able to use them without at least one fixed point.