You say it's wrong despite Jacob Howard confirming that is the exact intent of the amendment. Why?
legislative intent is non sequitur when the statute or const'al article under consideration is clear and unambiguious. The Const. is replete with ambiguious terms (due process, unreasonable search, etc) but the one you're worked up about is without any ambiguity, it says something clear and simple and therefore means precisely what it says. All of the fervent teeth-nashing and breast-beating will not change the plain meaning of the words used in the article.