"Interpreting the Constitution is no more difficult, and no different in
principle, than interpreting a late-eighteenth-century recipe for fried
chicken." --Gary Lawson
Suppose you have an old recipe for, say, Great Grandma's egg nog, and it says something like this:
"Add nutmeg to taste."
Some would argue that such an ancient text defies original meaning interpretation and requires the modern reader to interpret the phrase as a
living, evolving concept. But does it really? Are we able to reasonably
understand the meaning of ancient texts, such as Hamlet, The Iliad, The Odyssey, Great Expectations, or the Bible?
Back to Great Grandma's recipe. When someone asked me about this once, I replied as follows:
But nutmeg means nutmeg (as nutmeg was understood at the time the recipe was published). Maybe a little more for you, a little less for me. Maybe a pinch. Maybe two pinches. But certainly not a handful. But if you substitute cinnamon for nutmeg, you are amending the recipe, not following it. Which under Art. V [of the Constitution] is fine so long as 3/4 of the states ratify the amended recipe.
What are your thoughts about being faithful to Great Grandma's recipe?
Is it futile to try to read Hamlet today? Should we allow judges to re-write Hamlet so it says what the judges want it to say rather than what it actually says?
Does a taking for "public use" mean "use by the public" or does it permit any taking for any "public purpose?" Is nutmeg [public use] cinnamon [public purpose]?
