Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Gadawg73]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.

Guess you've never been married...

 

[Skylar]

Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.

Its similar to an argument made by Ginsberg.....where marriage has already changed when it became a union of equals. For a very long time it wasn't.

 

[LittleNipper]

Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.

The "right" to Gaiety marriage dissolves my right to ignore homosexual unions. You want to attend the "church" of fornication, and get "married" there that is up to you. But when YOU sue me so your significant other can horn in on healthcare to nurse HIV even where the business is "Christian" or owned by Christians ---I have a real freedom of religion issue that says I do not have to go against what the Bible indicates according to everything the Constitution implies.

Christians should not have to decorate homosexual specific wedding cakes, anymore than they should be made to decorate sexually explicit ones. Christian photographers should not have to provide services for homosexual affairs anymore than Nazi ones. If one can fire someone for trying to proselytize while at work, I see no reason a person who choses a homosexual lifestyle should not seek those who agree with such to service them. They are obviously not that hard to find.

 

[LittleNipper]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you want the states to decide if YOU can exercise your rights to life, liberty, speech, religion, gun ownership, and other types of property? If so... then lets throw out the 14th amendment and have at it.

Again mister in the closet homosexual the 14th amendment does not apply because being homosexual is a CHOICE

The right to life is not a choice, it's a right. Get over it. Oh and the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a part of that right to life. See right to life in the fourteenth amendment. See SCOTUS rulings on marriage. Sorry, but the constitution is not dictated by the pope.

Hmmm, does your "right to life" argument apply to unborn human beings, or only to gay human beings? Just curious.

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

 

[Skylar]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

 

[Redfish]

Again mister in the closet homosexual the 14th amendment does not apply because being homosexual is a CHOICE

The right to life is not a choice, it's a right. Get over it. Oh and the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a part of that right to life. See right to life in the fourteenth amendment. See SCOTUS rulings on marriage. Sorry, but the constitution is not dictated by the pope.

Hmmm, does your "right to life" argument apply to unborn human beings, or only to gay human beings? Just curious.

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

 

[Redfish]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

What they also determine is what is unconstitutional, like gay marriage bans in this case.

 

[Skylar]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The right to life is not a choice, it's a right. Get over it. Oh and the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a part of that right to life. See right to life in the fourteenth amendment. See SCOTUS rulings on marriage. Sorry, but the constitution is not dictated by the pope.

Hmmm, does your "right to life" argument apply to unborn human beings, or only to gay human beings? Just curious.

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

Equality is what this is about, which fucks you good because in your mind faggots aren't equals.

 

[Redfish]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution. The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

God luck finding any competent lawyer, judge, or legal scholar who believes that, since it is entirely untrue. What they actually meant is a constant debate, since we very often do not know.

And, it wouldn't matter a damn in the end even if we did know. If they were wrong we have every right in the world to fix it. They expected us to, and we do, slowly, but we do.

 

[Skylar]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.

And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.

And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.

repeating something that is wrong does not magically make it true.

1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law

2. the constitution is not to be "interpreted" it is to be read, understood, and followed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.

And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.

repeating something that is wrong does not magically make it true.

1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law

2. the constitution is not to be "interpreted" it is to be read, understood, and followed.

The "understanding" part, that's the problem. They didn't leave us a guidebook.

Educate yourself, for once: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

 

[LittleNipper]

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.

And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.

repeating something that is wrong does not magically make it true.

1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law

2. the constitution is not to be "interpreted" it is to be read, understood, and followed.

The "understanding" part, that's the problem. They didn't leave us a guidebook.

Educate yourself, for once: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Actually they did. The Constitution was to be interpreted in accordance with Judeo/Christian ethics as practiced by the vast majority of the American Citizens as revealed biblically. To say that the Founding Fathers had no understanding of the Bible --- never read it, or considered the Bible some backward book (having no influence on the designers of the Constitution or its design) is to distort American History and destroy the very fabric of the Constitution.


The Bible and Government
Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws

PRINCIPLE LEGAL DOCUMENT BIBLE
Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state, or sovereignty of man Mayflower Compact, Declaration, Constitution, currency, oaths, mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, Pledge of Allegiance Ex. 18:16, 20:3, Dt. 10:20, 2 Chron. 7:14, Ps. 83:18, 91:2, Isa. 9:6-7, Dan. 4:32, Jn. 19:11, Acts 5:29, Rom. 13:1, Col 1:15-20, 1 Tim. 6:15
Existence of objective moral values, Fixed standards, Absolute truth, Sanctity of life Declaration ("unalienable" rights—life, etc., "self-evident" truths) Ex. 20:1-17, Dt. 30:19, Ps. 119:142-152, Pr. 14:34, Isa. 5:20-21, Jn. 10:10, Rom. 2:15, Heb. 13:8
Rule of law rather than authority of man Declaration, Constitution Ex. 18:24-27, Dt. 17:20, Isa. 8:19-20, Mat. 5:17-18
All men are sinners Constitutional checks and balances Gen 8:21, Jer. 17:9, Mk. 7:20-23, Rom. 3:23, 1 Jn. 1:8
All men created equal Declaration Gen. 1:26, Acts 10:34, 17:26, Gal. 3:28, 1 Peter 2:17
Judicial, legislative, and executive branches Constitution Isa. 33:22 (See Madison)
Religious freedom First Amendment 1 Timothy2:1-2
Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to influence the state First Amendment Dt. 17:18-20, 1 Kgs. 3:28, Ezra 7:24, Neh. 8:2, 1 Sam. 7:15-10:27, 15:10-31, 2 Sam. 12:1-18, Mat. 14:3-4, Lk. 3:7-14, 11:52, Acts 4:26-29
Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor of Godly rulers

Constitution

Ex. 18:21, Dt. 1:13, Jud. 8:22-23, 1 Samuel 8, Pr. 11:14, 24:6
Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments Mat. 18:15-18, Gal. 5:16-26, 1 Cor. 6:1-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-5, Tit. 2:1-8
Establish justice Declaration Ex. 23:1-9, Lev. 19:15, Dt. 1:17, 16:19-20, 24:17-19, 1 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam. 8:15, 1 Kings 3:28, 10:9, Mic. 6:8, Rom. 13:4
Fair trial with witnesses Sixth Amendment Ex. 20:16, Dt. 19:15, Pr. 24:28, 25:18, Mat. 18:16
Private property rights Fifth Amendment Ex. 20:15-17
Biblical liberty, Free enterprise Declaration Lev. 25:10, Jn. 8:36, 2 Cor. 3:17, Gal. 5:1, James 1:25, 1 Peter 2:16
Creation not evolution Declaration Gen. 1:1
Biblical capitalism not Darwinian capitalism (service and fair play over strict survival of the fittest) Anti-trust laws Ex. 20:17, Mat. 20:26, 25:14-30, 2 Thes. 3:6-15, 1 Pet. 2:16
Importance of the traditional family State sodomy laws, few reasons for divorce Ex. 20:12-14, Mat. 19:1-12, Mk. 10:2-12, Rom. 1:18-2:16, 1 Cor. 7:1-40,
Religious education encouraged Northwest Ordinance Dt. 6:4-7, Pr. 22:6, Mat. 18:6, Eph. 6:4,
Servanthood not political power Concept of public servant Ex. 18:21, Rom. 13:4, Php. 2:7,
Sabbath day holy "Blue laws" Ex. 20:8
Restitution Restitution laws Lev. 6:1-5, Num. 5:5-7, Mat. 5:23-26

Please see: The Bible and Government - Faith Facts

 

[Skylar]

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.

And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.

repeating something that is wrong does not magically make it true.

I'll let my statement that the Federalist Papers are a better source on the meaning of the constitution than you are stand on its own. I'll also assert that Alexander Hamilton is a far better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

He played a key role in the crafting of the constitution. You didn't. He was there when it was crafted. You weren't. Thus, his experience is direct and relevant. And your opinions are centuries after the fact and gloriously uninformed. Making you a vastly inferior source on the role of the judiciary than either the Federalist Papers or Alexander Hamilton.

1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law.

The Federalists Papers are cited by the USSC. The Papers have as much legal validity as the courts credit them with.

Your opinions on the other hand have no legal validity. As you're not a legal authority. No court has ever cited you. Nor do you have a sufficient basis of knowledge to be a credible source. Nor can you support your claim logically or factually. When faced with obvious contradictions of your assertions (for example, the half dozen subjective standards that require interpretation), you merely ignore them. And your willful ignorance isn't an argument nor is it evidence.

Its an excuse for both.

2. the constitution is not to be "interpreted" it is to be read, understood, and followed.

Says you, citing yourself. Yet the founders themselves recognized the need for interpretation of the constitution. You say 'uh-uh'.

They wrote the document. And you're nobody. They win. Thus, your baseless assertions are refuted and debunked. In addition to your assertions being factually baseless statements of your own personal opinion. Which is both uninformed and hopelessly subjective.