I would like to make a brief post as to why many people, and not just Anglos, seem to believe that the meaning of words is found in the author's intentions, and not by its objective referents as I have been arguing of late.
Suppose you were talking with someone and then you believe that he misspoke because it doesn't make sense, or said something unclear, thus you say to him, "I think you meant (intended!) to say this instead?" Your interlocutor then realises his mistake or clarifies himself, then the conversation moves on, you know what he intended to say, what was on his mind.
But note very carefully the context I've set out here: you're talking to a live person, the context here is that you are primarily addressing someone, you're not so much interested in the words itself, you're interested in him, and what he thought. Thus, by very framing of this context his intentions is the primary object which you are addressing. It makes no sense to keep insisting on what he said in the past when in the present he has clarified his own thoughts and intentions, you're addressing him primarily, not his words.
Yet, prima facie, it makes no sense to abstract from this context to discuss the meaning of other public documents or texts like laws and constitutions. Again, as I've repeated again and again and again, unless you pretend to engage in necromancy and receiving messages from ancestral spirits (in heaven or hell), you are NOT having a live conversation with anyone living. It makes NO SENSE addressing the minds of a person either sleeping in hades, roasting in hell, or enjoying the bliss of heaven. Unless you engage in witchcraft or necromancy, you CANNOT talk to the dead. The ONLY other context in which the dead can speak with us is via faith in Christ. "By faith Abel, though he is dead, still speaks". By what demonic force do Founding Fathers of dubious or doubtful Christian credentials speak to us today via the Constitution?
You might say that this might be so with the Constitution, but surely it would not be applicable to present day legislation and laws where the legislators are still alive. Now, legislation made by a collective body is very tricky because it is unclear whose intentions you should seek. I am reminded here of Eusebius, who was part of the body which drafted and ratified the original Nicene Creed, who proceeded to "clarify" his intentions by giving it an Arian interpretation. Generally, commentaries after the fact do not affect or alter the meaning of a collective text. Imagine if Congress or a legislative body enacted a legislation banning abortion, and then later on some left or liberal politicians, who voted for it, wrote a legal commentary "clarifying" their intentions to have some exceptions to the ban. Generally when it comes to a collective document, it is somewhat arbitrary whose subjective intention you want to consult, and legislation generally acquire a life of its own independent of the subjective intentions of its authors. If they want to "clarify" the legislation, they have to pass another law, not write a clarification after the fact.
The reality is that this "interpretation of laws by intention" really is muddled thinking which goes back to when laws were made by individual kings. The king can deliberate legal decisions and legislation "in council" (the predecessor of parliament), but ultimately the king himself has to make up his own mind, and his decrees is literally just a statement of his intentions. So if you want to know what the law meant, just ask him! In fact Glanville, a 12th century medieval treatise by Henry II's Chief Justiciar on the laws and customs of England, went so far as to say: "what pleases the prince has the force of law", the law literally just is a statement of his intentions.
It is highly ironic that for Americans, who expressly rejected the king, rejected the idea of the law being the product of the subjective will or intention of kings, who insist on the government of laws against the government of man, the law as an objective thing, still want to interpret the law as if there was a living king behind it, with a particular set subjective intentions which they can consult.