The shift between 1 and 2 represents a move up a logical level, from first-order to second-order analysis.
The Legal-Interpretive Framework operates within the system. It takes the legal structure for granted and seeks to correctly apply its rules. Its "objective approach" is a pragmatic tool for maintaining order inside the constitutional manifold.
The Topological-Structural Framework examines the system from the outside. It questions whether the very fabric of the legal structure—specifically its self-referential, self-amending capabilities—contains a formal flaw (Gödel's Loophole) that renders the entire interior interpretive process moot.
A dictator could, in theory, use the legal amendment process (Article V) to legally dismantle democracy, making the "objective meaning" of the original text irrelevant.
In essence, 1 is about playing the game by the rules, while 2 is about proving that the rules of the game allow for a move that destroys the game itself.
The shift between 1 and 2 represents a move up a logical level, from first-order to second-order analysis.
The Legal-Interpretive Framework operates within the system. It takes the legal structure for granted and seeks to correctly apply its rules. Its "objective approach" is a pragmatic tool for maintaining order inside the constitutional manifold.
The Topological-Structural Framework examines the system from the outside. It questions whether the very fabric of the legal structure—specifically its self-referential, self-amending capabilities—contains a formal flaw (Gödel's Loophole) that renders the entire interior interpretive process moot.
A dictator could, in theory, use the legal amendment process (Article V) to legally dismantle democracy, making the "objective meaning" of the original text irrelevant.
In essence, 1 is about playing the game by the rules, while 2 is about proving that the rules of the game allow for a move that destroys the game itself.