Communication is an interpersonal act that is fraught with complexities. When anyone speaks, writes, or sends messages in any format, his or her words carry with them intentions—some good, some bad depending upon the point of view of the sender. All such messages also are inherently laced with biases. For better or worse, we all have preferences. All must pass through the individual filters in the minds of the listeners that also contain biases. The messages thus decoded may have little resemblance to the original message conjured up by the sender. We know that syntax (the words used), context (those words that precede or follow), and setting (where, when, and myriad surrounding factors) also modify the speaker’s message. He may also employ humor, gestures, emotions, or logic that further refine his message. Along the way the most skilled sender will employ a wide array of delivery approaches to have any reasonable expectation that his intended message approximates the one received by his audience.

So, what is new in these observations? Only this: The art of communication is like a living organism, always adapting and responding to change. Words change their meanings over time. So do expressions. We do not all share equally in apprehending past or present usages; thus, understanding is a subject that requires us to be alert and attuned to many different elements of style, pomp, and circumstance. No training or predisposition gives anyone a clear advantage in how to cut through it all and reach a nirvana of time and place where two minds are joined in a symbiosis of mutual understanding.

In practice, we find that the best speakers are rarely stoics or academicians. Often, they are comedians who can turn language on its head and make us laugh. Imagine how difficult that feat must be. And the very best are such standouts, we know and love them instantly. From the ranks of U.S. comedians, think of the antics of Jonathan Winters, Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Redd Foxx, Phyllis Diller or Sarah Silverman. Each of them (past and present) was and is exquisitely equipped to understand our likes and dislikes with amazing prowess. Moreover, being able to laugh at ourselves is a sign of having great insights into the human condition. Lawyers and legislators are notoriously weak speakers. They just aren’t fun or funny enough.

With that backdrop, why would anyone believe that lawyers and legislators are the best judges of what constitutes the meaning of the words in our Constitution? Do they have any special insights to syntax, context, setting, gestures, comedy, tragedy, who we are, what we want to become, or our goals, our lives, our preferences, and our happiness? Are they best able to set their biases aside and act in our best interests? Do we even want or need those who believe they are best able to set biases aside? There is much to be said for having the “common touch,” for being able to sense what we feel, what we need to find fulfillment, and how to treat each other with honesty and fairness. Once again, lawyers and political ideologues do not surface in my mind as good candidates for those most likely to act in our best interests.

An even more alarming concept is to give any lawyer/legislator a lifetime position on our Supreme Court. Oh my God! When, why, and how did this custom become our custom? I did not have a vote in this practice. Lawyers tend to repeat the frightening mantra “We are a nation of laws” with such regularity, it is likely set in stone somewhere in our law schools. I would prefer to hear candidates for political office say “We are a nation of diversity with a common purpose: to live, to love, to laugh, to share, and to enjoy the bounty of a land that is always in search of something better (a more perfect union); of finding justice (treating each other fairly); of tranquility (living in peace with each other); in defending our way of life; in sharing the fruits of our labor (the general welfare); and in securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Aren’t these concepts from our Constitution really the only elements of that document that need to be committed to memory by those who would make judgments about what is good for all of us?

Those who are best able to guide us (a melting pot of many cultures and ethnicities) along an uncertain future but toward unifying outcomes need a sense of humor, a sense of justice, and a sense of fair play. I can find little in life, in language, or in happiness that favors those who seek to become legislators whether from the ranks of philosophers, militarists, academicians, or lawyers over all others in general; or over girl scouts, home makers, and comedians in particular. Few things in life drain my soul of its vitality as much as does the thought of an ideologue who is so brain-washed in his narrow-mindedness he believes he knows more about what is good for me or you than we do. Lifetime appointments where life, law, and happiness are at issue should be as limited in application as justice is wedded to the guillotine.