LOL, you’re so cucksure of yourself that you’re prancing around wondering why no one else is keeping up with you - only to find that everyone else is ten steps ahead.
Anyone who has looked into causes and considerations of the Civil War is aware of the Corwin amendment. You sneer that “It simply goes over the head of those people” when YOU were the only one in the dark.
I do see that you’ve modified your spin to “tacit” agreement - that’s a step in the right direction!
In this you are exhibiting the same fallacy of thinking that I have seen many times over the years; The belief that most people know what you know, and see things as you see them.
No, they really don't. They may share some assumptions, but it is very unlikely that they understand as much about this topic as do you.
Anyone who has looked into causes and considerations of the Civil War is aware of the Corwin amendment.
But most people do not look into this. They join this discussion on a whim, and are surprised when people present them with something such as the "Corwin Amendment" of which they had never previously heard. It is only the regulars here on Free Republic that are familiar with the "Corwin Amendment."
I do see that you’ve modified your spin to “tacit” agreement - that’s a step in the right direction!
It is a trivial distinction between the one thing and the other. When a President says he is "not opposed", it is the equivalent of saying "I support this."
All else is sophistry. There is no "middle" position between opposing and supporting an amendment of such serious significance.