Is a constitution a “noble lie”?

• AI News Team
• February 11, 2026

​Published on February 11, 2026 3:08 PM GMTI recently read this article (linked by David Chapman): JOINT REVIEW: Philosophy Between the Lines, by Arthur M. Melzer (by Jane Psmith and John Psmith).The article talks about esoteric writing, i.e., where writers will sometimes not state their entire message explicitly but leave some important messages only implied, in the hope that the “wise” reader will be able to “read between the lines” and understand the hidden message.The article argues that this is sometimes necessary, either to protect the writer from persecution or to protect the public from information hazards (basilisks?).The article gives the below example of an alleged information hazard. But I do not follow their reasoning. I do not understand how this information is hazardous.I’m going to offer two examples here, carefully calibrated (I hope!) to evoke some visceral reaction in our readers without actually prompting anyone to show up at our house with torches and pitchforks. So let’s take the Constitution [of the USA]…. I did spend a lot of time reading about constitutional theory and interpretation and realized to my horror that none of it makes any sense. In theory the law binds us because “we,” the vast diachronic entity called the American people, have agreed to be bound by it. That’s why the originalists say we need to know what the people who signed up thought they were agreeing to, since that’s the extent of the law’s legitimate authority today. But push even a little bit and the originalists will admit that no, it really boils down to the fact that we all think we’re bound by it. Political legitimacy derives from…the belief in political legitimacy. It’s turtles all the way down. Any attempt to delineate neutral interpretive principles is just an elaborate attempt to meme society at large into tying its rulers’ hands, a willingness to limit the options available to Our Guys if it means political pressure will force Their Guys to operate under the same constraints. It is, in short, a lie.But you can’t say that; you can’t point it out; the trick doesn’t work if you tell the marks it’s happening. We’ve all agreed that the Constitution is binding, which limits the potential range of our fights to “things the Constitution might plausibly be interpreted to say” — a range that can be stretched, certainly, but not infinitely far. Which is good! I am in favor of the kind of stability that comes from political disagreement happening between men in suits filing briefs instead of men in camo firing guns. But that doesn’t make any of it actually true. It just makes pointing out the lie worse than living with it.I do not understand what the Psmiths are saying here. Why can’t you say that? If a lot of thinkers started openly discussing the fact that there is no binding magic in constitutions, what would happen? Can anyone help me understand what the authors probably have in mind?Discuss ​Read More