|
But radar, you do interpret the text.
You make clause 1 apply to the whole article. You import the phrase "common defence (sic)" into the rest of the clauses, and so limit what Congress may muster an Army of Navy to do. It's not the plain reading; it's an interpretation.
You might say that the plain meaning of the text puts that clause in force for the whole article. I might say that the plain meaning sets each clause as independent. In either case, we're both making an interpretation.
At that point, we’re off “plain text” and we need to make an argument for whose hermeneutic is more reasonable. And if we're bandying about interpretations, surely we should pay some heed to those who are professional interpreters of the text? the Judiciary?
-sm
|