[Tenacious 1]

there’s a reason original intent does not control proper constitutional interpretation. It doesn’t matter what they intended, it matters what they wrote. And the Framers let Congress form its own rules, as is perfectly appropriate.

I respectfully disagree on your first point and do agree on the second. When matters are argued before the SC, the interpretation of the constitution is paramount. It is the source of much judicial activism on the left. Abortion was decided on Privacy issues. Why? Because there is nothing in the constitution that would allow the SC to rule on abortion. Therefore it would not be heard and should have been left for the states to legislate (barring an amendment to the US constitution).

So when matters of the constitutionality of laws (not senate/house rules) are brought before the court, Justices perform due diligence, in consideration of the argued interpretation of the constitution, to rule on the validity of said litigators case. The judges are supposed to research case law and historical context from present legal sources to the founders own papers and declaration of independence (on occasion). The intent of the constitution is indeed important as the founders put it in print. Otherwise you would get judges citing international and European law to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

It is not uncommon for constitutional arguments to come down to a comma or specifically placed period (2A). Yes, grammar and punctuation matter, but the intent as it was written by the founders is what is important to govern the nation.

If Webster decides to change the definition of "Freedom" or of "Liberty" then the constitution "as written" would take a whole different direction as the arguments before the SC would have citations from dictionaries submitted as evidence.

[Tublecane]

You systematically confuse intent with what is written in the Constitution. Intent is precisely what is not written down. Intent is what you intended to write down, or what we guess they intended to write down. Only what is actually written controls.

[Tublecane]

“If Webster decides to change the definition of ‘Freedom’ or of ‘Liberty’ then the constitution ‘as written’ would take a whole different direction as the arguments before the SC would have citations from dictionaries submitted as evidence.”

Websters changing definitions is neither here nor there, as the correct way to interpret the Constitution is known as *original* meaning. What matters is what it meant at the time it was passed, not on down the road.