in addition, free blacks could vote in many of the states that also allowed slavery, it wasn't until after the Founders Generation had passed, for example, that North Carolina limited the franchise to whites (in 1835)...State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776),  Maryland (1776),  New Hampshire (1784),  and New York (1777).  (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”)  Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution,  as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. ...
As a result of these provisions, early American towns such as Baltimore had more blacks than whites voting in elections;  and when the proposed US Constitution was placed before citizens in 1787 and 1788, it was ratified by both black and white voters in a number of States. ... Additionally, blacks in many early States not only had the right to vote but also the right to hold office. 
History is fun.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
It would have been nice if the OP would have provided some examples to support the term, Literal Constitutionalist and Spirit of the Law.
I concur with Post#16.
Post#18 is a good example of providing ‘examples.’
'The whole universe is going to die!'
This entire idea of corporations being extended rights of individual citizens is another. A literalist can look at the first three words of the document and see it is talking about WE THE PEOPLE. The First Amendment has language which specifically talks about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. The First Amendment, like the Second, is made up of only one sentence.
It is NOT my intent to argue the merits of either of these positions here to derail the thread. It is only my intent to show that the idea of a literal interpretation of the Constitution can also favor the views of some on the left and it is not only a rightist crusade.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
You also claim that the strong are the ones who survive, yet fail to realize you're in a far weaker position than the rest of us. If it came to violence, I'm quite sure you and whoever fell in at your side would be easily defeated by the rest of the people unwilling to live in your form of government. In fact the notion of Civilization and its existence is the only thing keeping you alive if it were true that without it we'd resort to violence over these issues.
The US constitution also makes no mention of an Air Force, clearly its existence is illegal. Also in Article 1 Section 9 it reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" yet you would make it illegal for anyone who has ever voted democrat to own a firearm, that is a ex post facto law, punishing someone for committing a crime or act that they committed while that action was still legal. Also the 14th amendment provides for "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore to deny all liberals their guns would require a trail of each and every one of them, plus it would be a violation of the concept of equal protection under the law.
The 8th Amendment also bars cruel and unusual punishment, something I believe tar and feathering qualifies as. But that also highlights the problem of literal translation, who's to say what is cruel and isn't cruel? Its not a work that can be taken literally where all people who read it agree on its meaning, for example the word "five" would be something we'd all agree on by taking it literally to mean five.
Its such a weak argument it literally makes its own counter argument.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
No Lives Matter
I had posted: When I read the complete but one sentence admendment "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." I'm reading the words "A well regulated Militia,...; and, in your comments there is no consideration of this. So what does the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." part intend? Interesting how hard it is to interpret and agree on the the written word, with and without the understanding the intent of the architecture of the whole thing.