You are entitled to your opinion but it was obviously formed around the premise that equal justice under the law is meaningless. It accords well with the concept that some people are only 4/5ths of a human being under the law.
Most FReepers know the underlying reasons the founders had for that compromise. But that was an analogy not the substance of our discussion so you're just using it as a straw man now. You know that we weren't discussing whether our founding principles achieved perfect manifestation.
Now you are just floundering around trying to restore your character instead of addressing the substance. You are still supporting the idea that standing under the law is conditional based on a speculation of future performance rather than inherent rights.