"Sorry, son but you are no expert on what the constitution means. But all opinions are welcome. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, that you HAD read the constitution. Like all great literary works it is a deep work and, like the Bible, has generated millions of pages of commentaries for those who are interested in such things. It is particularly useful to study and understand the Constitution's greatest exponents and advocates such as Marshall, Hamilton and Madison. No one can claim to be knowledgeable about the constitution without having read the Federalist and Marshall's landmark opinions which have shaped our nation's laws for 200 years. Apparently you are unaware that what the judges have ruled is called Constitutional law, a subject you pretend an interest in, sorry if I took you at your word. As far as militia goes Illinois' constitution defines it as "every able-bodied adult." That is good enough for me and that is what was meant in the constitution with man in place of adult."Actually, I have been reading the Federalist Papers with interest. That wasn't my point. My point was the fact that you forgot to even suggest reading the Constitution, itself. Reading the Bible on your own is a far better thing to do than to sit back and let a ......pedophile priest, for example,...... "interpret it" for you.
The Supreme Court has ruled that:
A) Slavery is Constitutional
B) All right!!! Slavery is gone, but seperate, but equal is Constitutional AND fashionable together with forced segregation
C) The Bill of Rights do not restrict the States from violating your rights, only the Federal Government
D) No, wait. forget we said part "C"
E) Seperate, but equal is no longer fashionable
F) ....but forced bussing is
G) Abortion was Constitutional all along, I guess...who cares what the unborn think? They can't vote.
H) Seperate, but equal college admmisions is constitutional, but not fashionable, so keep it quiet, ok?
Where, in God's name, does this leave "Constitutional Law"? It's all over the place to hell and back. I understand what people refer to as "case law" (rulings from the bench). I just reject the notion that we are prisoners of it for eternity. Oh, and.... I don't care what the Illinois State Constitution says.
Law changes with new law. Constitutional amendments changed what was a correct ruling-slavery was legal- so that slavery was no longer legal. This is quite simple. Thus, the court has no need to go back with a different set of men operating under a different set of laws to change, erase or apologize for earlier rulings made moot by new laws.
Who said anything about letting a "pedophile priest" interprete something for me, how about actually examining what great students of the bible thought, like St. Augustine, or John Calvin or Martin Luther? Most students of the bible and other great works enjoy studying the thoughts of others who have studied them deeply and written about them. I enjoy Homeric commentary as well as John Marshall's commentary about the Constitution. But that hardly means I don't make up my own mind.
On a site like this it is assumed that anyone wishing to discuss the constitution has read it.