I’m well you take the said of the “interpretation” and I’ll take the side of the literal meaning. Can’t wait to use your argument against you in the future
You don’t even see that you’re babbling.
Listen, dopey. (It won’t help because you seem incapable of having an open mind or of learning anything; but I can still try.)
Would you argue that every single word in the Constitution is crystal clear and perfectly unambiguous? Would you deny MY contention which is that
there are some ambiguities in the Constitution?
If you manage to agree with me that ambiguities do exist in the Constitution, well then, in order to comply with it, some ambiguities need to be addressed. For example:
1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ….” Are you so literal that you believe a law prohibiting the publication of top secret information is somehow unconstitutional? So, maybe “no” law was never intended to include particular “speech”? A wee bit of common sense tells us that,
of course, it’s
not “unconstitutional” to prohibit the publication of classified documents.
What I just posted ^ in this post is simply the truth and it’s accurate. If you agree, then you seem obliged to concede that the Constitution sometimes requires legal analysis.