I am not suggesting a change in the theoretical structures we use to interpret the Constitution. What I am suggesting is that we perceive the Constitution in a more complete manner. Obviously a perception is different from a conception. Once we perceive it differently, we can conceive it differently. By this I mean our concepts would be underwritten by a different perception. Perceptions are sensory information that can support different conceptions. Our conceptions can then be grounded on different perceptual data. If our conceptions are based purely on the written word, then the words can be manipulated endlessly, not to mention the new effects of the Linguistic Turn. The suggested approach would expand interpretive practices into the underlying structure of the Constitution. In this way we can respect the goal of the Founding Fathers and perceive the Constitution in the same manner that they must have perceived it. Even though the authority of language was not an issue with them, it is now. They could do only so much with language and they did a fantastic job. But now the Linguistic Turn has surfaced and its not going to go away. Its here to stay. Of course, many individuals state that we must look to the original intent of the framing. It can be stated in those words, but its more than that, it's the original underlying structure of the government framed by them. There intent may be productive if we 'look' under the words. The usual interpretive practices examine the facts, apply the rules of law, and then, follow established precedence. But, in view of contemporary uses of language, that no longer seems to be enough. Language is no longer as authoritative as it used to be. When the Constitution was crafted language as a vehicle of expression was not questionable. But, today it is. However, the important structures underlying the Constitution that prompted its language are still there. Those underlying structures are obvious from just a cursory examination of the language. The Founding fathers wanted a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That calls for a triadic form of government. The people forming the government were the same people who were to serve as executives and adjudicators. The people at the bottom of the triad are the most important part of governing because they are the source of the Constitution. " We the People..." Thats why the First Amendment provides for the "right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," That Amendment was effective on December 15,1791. If all is not well, that is the right of revolution.