The section on Neural Storage Retrieval is a little too simplistic when it says everything about a word definition is retrieved. There must be a physical basis for individuals situationally changing their word choices when adopting various roles like spouse, child, parent or expert in a specialized field. There must be cases where a situation dictates which definition dominates which masks out the other possible definitions.
For a person to read old texts like the constitution the modern definitions need to be masked out by emersion in that era's definitions. When the volume of definitions is large enough and used frequent enough the person will create a role for reading text of that era.
No experiments have been done to determine what is "enough". But tests could be developed to check if era specific concepts make sense.
Words change meaning for a purpose. The revolutionary war, the writing of a new constitution and the civil war provided motivation for new meaning of words.
Reading and understanding the definitions of words from 200 years ago allows us to understand what the words meant in our constitution at the time they were written.
When reading Pre-Civil War Words make a mental note of the things which seem strange.
They didn't have the term "human rights". Instead, individuals had the privilege to use the natural liberties bestowed upon humans.
They didn't have the term "civil rights". Instead, individuals were franchised to use civil liberties and the people as a group had the authority within their jurisdiction (social community, city, county, state) to determine what those liberties were.
Note only the people who knew how to write (all lawmakers) would adhere to these definitions and if these hold up in court the extremists on both the left and right will be angry because individual rights are indirect. The need for equal treatment under the law is not diminished. But the arguments are more complicated than authoritarians like because it's the organized groups of persons that have the rights and not the government.
Because Madison was the representative for the philosopher demographic in the analysis, the extrapolation needs significant addition work. It does not appear to adversely impact the definition of the word "people". But the same cannot be said for sovereignty, supremacy, republic, coverture and other words in 1780 and 1868.
The explanation for arriving at 66% percent confidence is likely to sound like channeling an ancestor. When it's a form of institutional knowledge by mimicry of Jungian archetypes with a distribution of the mixture of types. With the right mixture the communication resonates. With the wrong mixture, no communication occurs. If this sound like freaking magic that's because FM radio works, this way. With Quanti Theory demoting EMS from fundamental and promoting the narrative into a middle level force this analogy is reasonable.
Madison is described by historians as a demi-lawyer, zealous philosopher and enthusiastic farmer. Scalia was definitely not a demi-lawyer. If anything, he was a lawyer and a half. And Madison could only be a half lawyer if we ignore two thirds of the law, the parts only lawyers actually see.
With the goal of finding consistency the worst is the constitutionality of the central bank. If Madison's lofty promises were required for the constitution to be ratified, we might need a royal proclamation statute of limitations transferred by analogy into common law. I hope it won't come to this. But this leads into the third problem.
Action: Moved to errata for tracking
Supremacy is lesser than sovereign using a federalist paper and the 1828 dictionary. The writeup will resolve unitary president theory.
The central bank may be unconstitutional.
I theorize that the night crew is moving the dendrites from where the day crew put them. I have been here before. I should not even try to work on the central bank question until I take time off. I am listening to Britney hoooolding on. I will be ready when meeting a bottle of Patron with some friends who bring steaks from Monterey sounds like fun instead of too much work trying to be social. But, while we still have an Emperor it won't be "Oye abre tus ojos" that I listen to.
I hope Santa tells the president his cabinet has been naughty this year. I don't want to seem greedy. Maybe just one for each of the blue states, singing along with Britney.