Don't you think you're being rather ridiculous in insisting he agree with you that a new constitutional amendment is needed? Your basic premise is that amendments should be written in exhaustive detail so as to exclude their misinterpretation by those poor, confused justices who can't be bothered with source writings from the laws' framers in order to ascertain their intent.
"Don't you think you're being rather ridiculous in insisting he agree with you that a new constitutional amendment is needed? Your basic premise is that amendments should be written in exhaustive detail so as to exclude their misinterpretation by those poor, confused justices who can't be bothered with source writings from the laws' framers in order to ascertain their intent."
I think that ndt knows exactly what I'm talking about regarding the 10th A. protected powers of the states, particular the power to address religious issues. But ntd doesn't want the reality check and is trying to confuse the issue.