The slippery sloap that you want to go down is trivially infelicit
The constitution says "tender", which might be tenuous to lean on, but you have to admit that "shall not make legal" vs "shall not make" is equivalent to saying "English is the language of this sentence", a classical liar's paradox, because it could mean anything depending which language it's written in, particularly if it's written in legalese.
It does in fact not say "legal tender".
I get that you want to argue that the words are open to interpretation. To the extent that they are, these particular words have been interpreted, they now have definitions which are accepted and considering binding as a matter of legal precedent; legal precedent being the underlying basis of the common law.
It seems pretty clear that you either don't understand that, or that you don't agree with it. Either way, it means that there's very little point in trying to have a discussion about the law with you, because your basis of argumentation is non-legal.
I am basicly saying that the interpretation is unacceptable, and that "they have been interpreted" is not an inherent quality of the word, because, as you have missed or may find irrelevant and impossibly complicated, like the finders of facts might, I'm interested in the historical linguistics of it and the implications for pragmatics and essentially discourse analysis. After all you are clearly saying that the intent matters.
In that sense, fuck you, no offense intended.
The way the law works feels like an insult often enough and the device of punishment is a most obvious outflow of that. It may have its reasons, but those are still quite subjective, wanton, and not at all as objective as you make them out to be.
