Constitutional intent at the time of crafting and for several years thereafter, is very different from Constitutional intent today. Why is that? At the time of crafting, there was no Linguistic Turn. The meaning of Language was not suspect. Of course, there was much debate, descriptions and definition of terms that any other debate would also have been subject too. The biggest political issues were about Federal sovereignty and State sovereignty. Unfortunately, that debate still exists today. But, there were no issues about language as a failed vehicle of meaning. Language meant something and it did for several centuries thereafter. When the Linguistic Turn raised its deconstructive face, most, if not all, writings became suspect. But the criteria that applies to interpretations of reality and those of interpretations of social and Constitutional institutions are very different. The constitution did not create reality, it established a political institution. In constituting a political institution, it can be interpreted with that end in view. In other words, it can authoritatively state, "thats not what I mean" or "thats what I mean". Of course, if we only focus on the surface use of language we are going to have some problems. Thats why I advocate looking at the political reality underneath the words as it existed at the time of formulation. It makes the inquiry more stable and we can see more clearly what they may have had in mind. Clearly, they wanted a democracy; they wanted a government of people, by people and for people. They created three branches and they protected each branch in one form or another. In the triad, the top gets to serve out the term for a period of four years. The sides are in for life so they can be objective about their interpretive practices. The bottom, if things are not quite right, has the right of revolution. Unfortunately, things can go wrong with any part of the triad. In such a case, the only solution is a well organized revolution.