What rules of interpretation do you want me to use?I find much of it ambiguous.
How exactly did they arrive at that conclusion?
In 1788, there were well established common law rules of constriction that applied to constitutions and statutes. The official and unofficial documents generated in the process of making the Constitution contain many references to rules of construction.
We could just apply the well established common law rules of construction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the men who participated in framing and giving legal effect to the Constitution believed their intent would be ascertained by looking at historical documents like the federalist papers or the speeches of Hamilton. However, there is an abundance of evidence that they took for granted that the established common law rules of construction would be applied to the Constitution.
Most words are ambiguous, in the sense that they have more than one meaning. What common sense rules of construction should we apply to decide which particular signification of a word should be assigned to a word in the Constitution?
Name one man who participated in the making of the Constitution who also came here to flee an overly powerful tyrannical government.
I suggest we try a little experiment then. Here is the first part of Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What exactly do you find ambiguous here?
I really don't care to be honest.