And after repeated requests, you can produce no evidence to support such a grammatically convoluted interpretatation of this letter. What evidence do you have in the other writings of the Founders that it is necessary to attribute such a strained construction in order to make it consistent with the intent of the clause expressed in those other writings? If no such evidence exists, why even engage in the exercis, and on what basis do you deem this the "correct" interpretation over the grammatically apparent one?
It's how the clause is actually being used in the courts. I'd say that's pretty damn good evidence. Where's yours?