[quote]dhickey wrote:
I have disagreed, at some point, with just about everyone on this forum and don’t consider most of them idiots. There are quite a few that are probably significantly smarter than I am. I am really starting to worry about you though.
[/quote]
I’m happy to discuss it with you if you can refrain from the ad hominem attacks. If you can’t, and your latest post reinforces this, you are welcome to discuss it with those you don’t consider to be an idiot.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt:
Why do you believe that a strict interpretation of the letter of the constitution would sanction a broader scope of scenarios than an interpretation allowing for both the literal applications and the applications that are not specifically designated, but are consistent with the spirit and intent of the original language?
For example, I can tell my son that he is only allowed to cross the street when the light is green.
What I really mean is that he should only cross the street when it is safe and legal to do so. So what happens when we come to Avenue B in rural Oklahoma, which doesn’t have a street light?
A strict interpretation of the law would disallow him from ever crossing Avenue B, but an interpretation recognizing the spirit and intent of that law would allow him to do so when there are no cars present.
The latter is definitionally more inclusive.