If I create a philosophy, my expectation is that whoever follows it will use it's basic tenets and inside those tenets add to it parts of themselves based on them and changing situations. None of us are mindless drones nor do we live in a vacuum. The Constitution is as such. It creates a set of tenets, a structure. Working within that structure, future people make it their own... as we have seen countless times, both based on themselves and based on change. Doing so does not alter the basic tenets of the document.Tell me, captain. If I was give you the duty of putting down your philosophy and you chose words carefully to convey the message you want, but as soon as I get my hands on your philosophy I start to redefine the words written and ignore your intent to make it my own. Would that still put out the message you wanted or would it simply put out mine? If I was to in turn follow this philosophy myself with these now redefined words would I actually be following your philosophy or would I just be following my own? Do you see what I'm saying here? It's important we maintain the meaning of clauses and words as they were written so that we actually follow the document meant to restrict us instead of simply following something we find will do whatever we want.
What it speaks to is the lack of relevancy of intent.That has nothing to do with intent, you know. That has to do with desires of man much like it does today.
And I already explained how it is not wrong and have clarified the "winners" issue.And I already told you this is wrong. There were in fact winners and losers and like any other law there is an intent behind each clause.