[Verse 1] When Savage said enrichment means received Something that prevents your baseline decline Every dollar, every gift, every deed Would qualify under that design But wait, there's something wrong with this view If everything counts, then nothing's new [Chorus] It's the circular reading problem here When the test means everything you get Then enrichment disappears, my dear Just "received something" is all that's left Above baseline, above baseline That's where true enrichment must align Above baseline, above baseline Or the doctrine loses its design [Verse 2] If preventing deterioration's the key Then breathing air would be enrichment too Every meal, every drink that keeps you free From starvation qualifies under this view The Supreme Court never meant it so There's got to be a higher bar to show [Chorus] It's the circular reading problem here When the test means everything you get Then enrichment disappears, my dear Just "received something" is all that's left Above baseline, above baseline That's where true enrichment must align Above baseline, above baseline Or the doctrine loses its design [Bridge] Savage's logic leads us to the truth The test needs independent content proof Not just maintenance of what you had But something more, something that adds Beyond the baseline, past the floor Enrichment has to mean much more [Verse 3] So when we ask "was there enrichment here?" We're not asking "did they get something?" We need a standard crystal clear Above mere baseline functioning The doctrine needs its own content Not circular argument [Chorus] It's the circular reading problem here When the test means everything you get Then enrichment disappears, my dear Just "received something" is all that's left Above baseline, above baseline That's where true enrichment must align Above baseline, above baseline Or the doctrine loses its design [Outro] From Savage's own reasoning we find Enrichment needs a better line Above baseline every time
← 3 Maintenance vs. Improvement | 1 How s. 15 Differs from s. 6 →