[A. Pole]

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.

The US Constitution is a formalization of underlying customs and common ideas deriving from the English tradition and modified by the political concepts of XVIII century. That is why it is " more than a manifesto of principles".

There were very nice laws and constitutions created in other countries which did not have much meaning because of lack of cultural roots.

BTW, England and United Kingdom until this very day does not have a written constitution. It demonstrates the primacy of customs and political culture.

When the informal rules, customs and common ideas change enough the old system might die, even if it appears alive on the surface.

[iluvgeorgie]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that culture has no role in constitutional interpretation. Certainly, culture can shed light on the plain textual meaning. However, I have seen no persuasive argument that the words "speech" and "debate" had a broader common meaning extending beyond discussion and advocacy of legislative proposals. If someone can find one, I'm willing to hear it.

The problem here is that Congress' "separation of powers" argument goes so far beyond the text as to render it superfluous. It essentially says that everything done within the four walls of the Capitol is immune from scrutiny. If that is so, there would be no need for the Founders to specifically single out speech and debate for protection.

Here there is not even the (debatable) proposition that the legal analysis should change because of unforeseeable developments like technology. What occurred here was a search of the type the Founders could easily have comtemplated (people entering a location and rummaging around to find things - no bionic eyes, no infrared, etc.).

I understand that a lot of people dislike faithful adherence to constitutonal text. It makes the system harder to effect change, but the less subjectivity that gets infused into the equation, the better. When we get into rival factions of archeologists and social scientists arguing about what the Founders "really meant" but did not say, we depart from the realm of legal analysis that we accord all other legal documents.