That's a rather esoteric answer which is appropriate and applicable in an academic debate setting.
I'm the hopeful sort Ringel.......
How about concrete specifics of that aspect you brought up in the previous post which offers proof of your assertion.
It takes time and effort, google up material support if you have either (which i'm a tad short on at the moment)
you see, those subtle little legislative changes can amount to monumental impact on the 'law' and those charged with it's administration.
so what we would boil down to is thier institution vs. their application
i mean, they always do in these debates, don't they?
that said, choosing a stance is simply a matter of which is more offensive.
Myself you ask? well, i find a rather wide practice / preach chasm committing our brave men and women to upholding a fundamental in the line of fire, while we cower behind security engineered to dismantle it
I see what you're saying but I've also seen constitutional law eventually win out far to often to lose faith just yet. If it's challengable it will be challenged, especially if enough people get fed up, of course then the courts aren't required, the newly elected and/or "reformed" politicians will vote to amend or repeal. The pendulum always seems to find a way to swing back.