How do you know that? How can you make that statement? You have some direct line to God or to the Founding Fathers?
Did I claim that it's incorrect? All I did was challenge your assumptions that their interpretations are correct, just because. Do you have anything to back that assumption up?
You give me some condescending [?] line like "there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution" or "they knew what they were writing" and expect me to sit here and nod my head, going "Yeah, good point"?
Well, either that or come up with an actual argument as to why that's wrong. Something beyond, "That's how the courts have ruled", because our whole discussion is centering around whether or not the courts are ruling correctly.
How can you say that a USSC interpretation is "wrong"?
SCOTUS itself has held that its prior opinions are wrong. What I've been trying to get out of you is an answer to why you (apparently) insist that a court opinion is automatically right. In fact, I asked that question of you in regards to a specific case back at #564, which you never responded to. Do you have an answer for it yet?
Nice straw man.
Interpreting the law is not a question of the "right" interpretation or the "wrong" interpretation. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the USSC "became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant."
Now, you got a better solution, let's hear it.
I thought, "So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong?" was a rhetorical question so I didn't bother to answer it.
I have no idea when we're justified. I know when I am.