Sorry my FR friend but, I have to respectfully disagree with your defense of the USSC hacks, I do not give the USSC any leeway when it comes to understanding what the Founders intended.
Remember, we were promised these traitors (er Judges) were the best of the best and as such, even if they could not fathom what the founders intended there is an owners manual known to the rest of us unwashed as the Federalist Papers.
If your sole job is to understand and defend the Constitution, then it is completely unreasonable to allow ANY of these hacks any latitude and to tolerate ignorance of the very core foundation laws of this country.
If a person does not know the intent of the most basic laws of our land they have no business sitting on the bench of the USSC or any other court for that matter.
One of the most basic concepts of the Constitution is that if it is not in there, the Federal government cannot do it. That concept is now completely ignored.
Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution reflect the huge influx of dishonest lawyers into our political system. They become longer and more vague with each subsequent amendment. This is deliberate when you are a dishonest politician.
That's correct, of course, on both accounts. But it is not always clear whether "it" is "in there" or not. Again, look at the 15th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to enforce voting rights by "appropriate legislation." Under the wording of this amendment, Congress can pass legislation to enforce voting rights, but only if the legislation is "appropriate." So, determining whether a particilar piece of voting-related legislation is "in there" requires a determination of whether the legialation is "appropriate." Reasonable minds can differ as to what is and is not "appropriate," and as to whose role it is to determine what is "appopriate."