It's plain English, it doesn't need interpretation....
There is no such thing as "plain English," especially with legal documents.
Everything requires an act of interpretation. The proper question is, what methods do we use to interpret it?
For example, consider the protections from cruel and unusual punishment. What does this mean? George Washington flogged deserters from the Revolutionary Army, but we do not regard that as an acceptable punishment today. Which standards do we apply? Should we go
back to floggings, stocks, and breaking on the wheel because they were acceptable in the late 18th century?
This is the worst. Thing. A. Supreme Court. Can. Do. It is tyranny.
lol
How is granting people the freedom to choose their own spouses a form of tyranny?
Constitutional rights are explicit or not at all.
Incorrect. In fact, the Framers did not include the Bill of Rights in the first draft, specifically because they did not want people to assume that enumerated rights were the only protected rights.
Nor is the court creating anything. Our nation has long held that people have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness; and the right to be treated equally under the law. This ruling upholds both these principles. It is no different than using federal standards to determine citizenship, or the boundaries of reasonable search and seizure.
This ruling along with the prior Obamacare rulings serves as proof that we the people have been bad stewards and we have not kept our republic. It is too far gone.
Uh huh. You lose a few political battles, and you give up on the entire nation? lol
I hate to break it to you, but it isn't a functioning democracy if you, and only you, get your way every single time. Sometimes the state will make decisions you agree with, sometimes it won't. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it's good. Welcome to America, my friend.