Or what he said vs what he meant

Or what he said vs what he meant

I agree, and perhaps a clearer explanation for people not used to interpreting case law (which is where the holding vs dicta metaphor comes from) is that O'Connor argues, "it's clear the creators of the Constitution didn't intend to give Congress this power. But it's equally clear that they did give it."

A thousands of years old principle in our legal system is that a person should be able to read a specific legal code and know what the law is. So it's what the law says, not what it's supposed to say, that matters.

Sometimes the specific code doesn't seem to say anything, and then we look at dicta, preambles, and transcripts of the legislature to establish a context in which to give any meaning at all to the words. But where the words are clear, they are all that matter.

I'm not saying I buy the argument in this case. "for a limited time" seems like one of those "no meaning at all" terms that requires context to interpret. But I admit that a reasonable person could find that it's quite clear: any time less than forever.