"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
Under the deconstructionist model, our system of
constitutional democracy would be relegated to a chaos not unlike
Alice’s encounter with Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland, where every
word, untethered from predictable meaning, means just what an
individual interpreter chooses for it to mean, “neither more nor less.”
The most fundamental problem with the linguistic chaos theory is that
the notion that words are capable of infinite construction simply defies
common sense. Indeed, there would hardly be a point to a written
Constitution in the first place—much less explicit provision of a formal
amendment process—if this were so.
