- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That's bull. The Amendments certainly aren't interpreted that way, and that's a fact. The 14th has been bastardized well beyond it's intent as have many other Amendments, including (IMO) the 2nd, though I have NO problem with it's current interpretation.My problem with you is your gross misinterpretation of our country's founding document, even after countless pieces of evidence from the people who wrote the document themselves. Even the supreme court has ruled that the constitution is to be read and interpreted as it would have been interpreted at it's creation. So when we look at this, we have to look at it in the scope of the founders' intent. The founders' intent was to create a limited set of duties that the states all agreed on to be conducted for them, and for everything else to be handled by each individual state... not for any duties the public wants to be lumped into "general welfare" and handled by the federal government.
But then again, I believe we should look at the contract that was actually signed, not the laments and opinions of the writers. I'm pretty sure that's the way all contracts work in this country. The intent of the writer doesn't mean squat in court, only the final, signed document itself - which is as it should be.
Last edited: