- If you’ll permit me to head the Committee on Detail, I bet I could sneak some coded messages into the text. You know you want to.
Our predecessors kept things a bit ambiguous as to how much weight we ought to give to their opinions on the floor. Filing a lot of the records of the debates away in the warehouse where they keep the Ark of the Covenant, Madison keeping his notes secret and then published them after everyone involved was dead, that sort of thing. Since you’ve already shot down my suggestion about requiring courts to interpret everything by the literal text which is written entirely in Lojban, I have an alternate proposal.
I know most of you take a dimmer view of sticking to original intent than I do. And I was expecting you to change that opinion now it’s your intent that’s in question, but congrats on your consistency I guess. Now. This is going to be an ongoing debate in the coming centuries. People looking back at the opinions of anyone who was in this room where it happened and using our opinions as proof of what we Really Meant. (Yes, that’s going to include me. The guy who just gave a six-hour speech about electing an aristocracy.)
But.
What if we made it completely impossible for anyone to say “the Founding Parents intended to put [X] in the document; therefore it must be the meaning of the law”? No one, and I mean no one, taking that seriously ever again. I can give you that.
Imagine: some future scholar, poring over the text because she’s in eighth-grade social studies and might get called on soon. And she notices that if you take the first word of the Preamble, the second word of the first clause, and so forth, it spells out a 419 scam. Or it says that da Vinci shot Kennedy, or gives ambiguous directions to a nonexistent buried treasure, whatever you like. I’m open to suggestions. In any case, your least favorite mode of interpretation will be dead.
Plus, hidden messages are cool.
You know you want to.
Tags:
#home of the brave #anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog



