[Jeff Winston]

“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

Wow. What a timely post.

DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.

And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.

[DiogenesLamp]

“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

Yeah, ask any ordinary citizen if they think the founders intended that "Anchor Babies" be regarded as "natural born citizens" of the United States, and see what they say.

DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.

As far as you're concerned, any criticism of you is silly. That's why I regard you as an expert at "silly."

And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.

A nonsensical assertion. Quoting the Supreme court does not establish them as being on your side. It is furthermore ridiculous to assume that one Supreme Court forever binds the findings of another Supreme Court. The overturning of Prior court's Precedent has occurred many times.