When the constitution was written, spelling was often phonetic rather than canonized as it has been post-Webster. Capitalization and font size were used as emphasis – bold not available to the pen, as it is today in print. Grammar was more formal and still retained some academic latin influences – including longer sentence structure. And it was written in the context of traditional Common Law, which itself was written in the context of Anglo Saxon Law, which codified Ancient Germanic law, which preserved european (west indo-european) traditional law. This presents a conflict because natural law of reciprocity needs strict construction to eliminate interpretation and the constitution relied on familiarity with that tradition rather than strict construction – Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and Markets in Everything are not stated, but assumed to the same degree as the existence of god and the perpetual existence of the church. Hence why the constitution must be rewritten with those definitions and with strict construction to ensure that that knowledge of that long tradition is no longer required, and also so that such a constitution is no longer open to interpretation.

Advertisements