So if a jury found a right to abortion in the Kansas constitution, that makes sense to you?
As I said, a rational judge would have tossed out any such case before it ever got to a Jury. The decision to overturn slavery in Massachusetts was made by the Judge when he decided to allow the case to go forward. What the Jury did was completely predictable once the real threshold had been breached.
They understood what they were voting for and what they were doing.
Not without articulating what they were doing in plain language. If it was their intent to abolish slavery, they would have plainly said so. Any interpretation that overturns the norm without specific language indicating that this is what is desired is a case of a judge writing law from the bench.
Unless you actually have something new to contribute, find something else to talk about.
I can understand your reluctance to discuss this "tale of two Articles". I would find it uncomfortable when a position I was previously advocating has been turned against me by justifying something I consider to be an abomination.
I have the advantage of being consistent in both cases. I say that the Massachusetts Article 1 was deliberately misinterpreted to achieve a result never articulated by the people who approved it, and I say the same thing of Kansas Article 1.
I consider Judges making up crap to be a destruction of law, and it's not a good thing, even if the cause for which they do it is good.
The Kansas state constitution went into effect in January, 1861.
If you could assemble a jury of voters who approved that constitution and they wanted to decide cases based on the constitution they approved, I would have to take what they said seriously.
Why don't you get started on that now, since you don't have anything new to say about this.
What do you care? Kansas is effectively a nation by our modern usage of the term. Doesn't that give them the right to do what they want? Or so you would have us believe.