I need not prove anything to you, but since you asked, it is these words I find to be offensive, coming from a young whippersnapper who does not know me: “I’m VERY glad that you had zip to do with writing the Constitution.”
That kind of arrogance heaped upon a stranger is worthy of rebuke, and you will get it. It is especially offensive because it comes from a studied ignorance that does not recognize one of the most fundamental purposes of government, namely discipline and respect at every level.
I am interested to know how young you think I am.
Excuse me, but that is NOT a fundamental purpose of government, and quite clearly, the Founders understood that it was outside the purview of government.
Discipline and respect, or the teaching/enforcing of them, ARE the fundamental purposes of a good church and/or a good parent. If a city, county, or state wants to be dry (no alcohol sales) in order to enforce discipline and respect, you are free to live there, and I am free to live in a state where government is the one exercising the discipline and respect toward individual rights to make mistakes and either grow from them or not.
I repeat that BECAUSE you have such a wrong and tyrannical view of the "fundamental purposes of government," I am glad you had zip to do with writing the Constitution.
WHY do you think the very moral and very Christian framers failed to include ANY prohibition of gambling, prostitution, and drunkenness in the Constitution?
Or were they all wrong with regard to the "fundamental purposes of government"? Were they as studied in their ignorance as you appear to be, in assessing the proper use of government to "rebuke" a stranger who disputes others' opinions?