I didn’t ask you what the words say; anyone can read them. I asked you why you believe, based on the historical evidence, that the Constitution isn’t supposed to be interpreted by our courts.
I’m interested in this part. Obviously some interpretation is going to happen, but would like to know the law that supports it. Also what (if anything) limits “interpretation” from allowing a 180 degree opposite to what is written to occur.
Asking more generally, not about going into a building I don’t strictly need to.
"shall not be violated" leaves no loopholes. Just like the second amendment:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated" do not leave loopholes. It's quite clear.
I didn’t ask you what the words say; anyone can read them. I asked you why you believe, based on the historical evidence, that the Constitution isn’t supposed to be interpreted by our courts.
> interpreted by our courts.
I’m interested in this part. Obviously some interpretation is going to happen, but would like to know the law that supports it. Also what (if anything) limits “interpretation” from allowing a 180 degree opposite to what is written to occur.
Asking more generally, not about going into a building I don’t strictly need to.
I answered your question. Your failure of comprehension is not my problem.
7 replies →