“If Webster decides to change the definition of ‘Freedom’ or of ‘Liberty’ then the constitution ‘as written’ would take a whole different direction as the arguments before the SC would have citations from dictionaries submitted as evidence.”
Websters changing definitions is neither here nor there, as the correct way to interpret the Constitution is known as *original* meaning. What matters is what it meant at the time it was passed, not on down the road.
I see where we are now. We agree. The original intent of what the words meant when it was written is the point. The BS starts when litigators argue what the intent of the founders was.