Embracing what he calls the "jurisprudence of original intent," Meese argues that the best way to read and apply the Constitution is to try to understand it as its authors did (Meese 377). “…the meaning of the Constitution can be known,” he declared, and the phraseology of the Constitution was deliberately crafted for a reason (376). Not only can the meaning of the Constitution be ascertained, but this meaning is also general enough to be relevant to current societal concerns. The Founding Fathers were not casual in their approach to creating the Constitution: they intended it to be a guideline for the questions of future generations. Meese believes that the Constitution successfully addresses issues that are beyond the scope of the culture, customs, and problems of the time in which it was written (375-376). Because the meaning of the Constitution is knowable and has a practical effect on current government administration, Meese agrees with John Marshall's quote that "...we have a written constitution with a meaning binding on the judges" (376). Judges are not free to interpret our founding document according to their whims, Meese believes. When, however, it is necessary to draw specific answers from general statements of the Constitution, "it should be interpreted and applied in such a way as not to contradict at least the text... itself" (378), and from broad statements one can understand "how they should problems be addressed and by whom" (376). In summary, Meese believes that the writings of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself are the best guides to the Constitution