Many things were obvious to the authors of Constitution and to the public. For example there was no need for the marriage amendment at that time.
Obvious insights can be lost. So the established customs and underlying beliefs.
Obvious insights can be lost. So the established customs and underlying beliefs.
I'm not so sure this is true. Right or wrong, the law is what the law says, not what the drafters subjectively thought they were saying--or more accurately, what people 200 years later suppose they must have been thinking--but did not. That's the great thing about a Constitution. If it doesn't say what we want it to say, we can change it. There is an established amendment process for effecting such changes. "Gentlemen's understandings" between Congress and the executive branch are not part of that process.
It seems to me that the speech and debate clause protects only two things: 1) speech and 2) debate. It does not protect materials except to the extent they are incidental to speech and debate (e.g. a copy of a speech). Other than "but we don't like it" Congress really has no argument.
We should read the Constitution like any other legal document, because that is what it is. If it were nothing more than a manifesto of principles, we could all just make a list of principles (e.g., liberty, equality, etc.) and throw out the document itself.