"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
If we continue this, we will simply go back around in a circle to Article 1.
The legal understandings of Article 1 have been well documented and are entrenched on our body of law.
Many of these misunderstandings also stem from Article 1 because Congress is inherently political and perhaps lazy is applicable as they continuously cede article 1 powers to the executive and judicial branch’s.
There are, as a result, a number of interpretations used by the judiciary interpret the Constitution such as original intent, textualism, strict constructionalism, and various sub divisions of the above.
It’s not going to get any better, but I think it would be foolish to think, or believe that we can at this stage flip it around to a different interpretation of Article 1 in that Congress can only make laws that pertain to the exact wording of the writings pertaining to them in the constitution as originally written.
Especially in light of the fact that the 1st amendment, for example, assumes that Congress could if it desires, make laws regarding religion so in light of that fear, the 1st amendment was written to prevent it.
So the Constitution assumes it in that respect and others that congress has great power to write law on any subject.
That’s just is what it is...
So we can go round and round and round, and never come to a agreement, using the same document.
So, there ya go....and have a nice evening..
So what does that do to your interpretation?