The very fact that this discussion has to occur is substantiation of my argument that this document is not simple and that major differences of opinion can occur over the meaning of punctuation marks and sentence structure. To claim that this is simple is like claiming Faulkner is simple.
I agree with you on that. This is a problem I have with nullification. It seems to me there ought to be a final judge of constitutionality, and then, if the states require remedy, or clarification, there is amendment. Maybe that's not perfect, but how many interpretations can we have at one time and still have a workable system?
But all those phrases ending with ; seem to be seperate allowable uses.
My understanding is that semicolons separate independent clauses.
5)Why is the term even there if it is to be ignored? It certainly has created confusion, controversey and mischief.
I think general Welfare was meant to mean "for the good of all the states in general." That's what I take it to mean. As opposed to "for the benefit of certain states."
The 10th is significant in its apparent lack of impact on constitutional law. I have challenged those who believe it to be anything other than a rhetorical device to refer me to some case law where it is referenced.
My mother the lawyer says that's actually how they teach the 10th amendment in law school.
Should you suffer from overly respecting Madison read about his conduct during the 1790s with respect to foreign affairs. His conduct (and Jefferson's oh, hell all the democrats.) was despicable.