Labels are not only irrelevant with respect to constitutional construction, they are a clever distraction from focusing on what our Constitution means.
The bottom line is, when a dispute arises as to the meaning of the text of our Constitution, its meaning is to be discovered and documented by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified which sheds light on the purpose for which the provision was adopted.
To put this into different words, we need only to read Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which our Supreme Court notes the following:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)