Replies

Unlike others on this thread, I don't feel that the meaning of every clause in the constitution is plainly obvious, but to read a clause to mean something so directly contrary to what it was intended to mean just is unfathomable to me.

Philosophically, I agree with you. However, it appears you failed to note my comment about the 14th amendment.

The Constitution was significantly altered by this amendment. This amendment directly gave the federal government the power to enforce a prohibition against actions which would “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” without defining exactly what those privileges, immunities or protections were. In short, it became the “Carte Blanche” or “wedge,” if you will, to stepping from a federal government to a national one that others on this thread have been complaining about. Since this was an amendment to the founding document, its alterations were not required to be in tune with the founder’s intent.

I don't think that was the purpose of the 14th Amendment. A better reading, in my view, was that it was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

An exhaustive and rather brilliant study of the Amendment was done by Raoul Berger in his wonderful text, Government By Judiciary. It is generously available online.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0003