No it is not a joke, it is grammar. What the PEOPLE intended when they wrote the document is not relevant, it is what the WORDS they actually wrote intend. This is really rather simple, it is basic contract law.



Publishing on the internet is still publishing, and YEAH, the second amendment does allow the individual to have military grade weapons, just good luck trying to afford an ICBM. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, get a majority of folks together and CHANGE it, not 9 guys with a lifetime appointment.


The written Constitution is ALREADY coast to coast law. He is against 9 people arbitrarily changing it regardless of the feelings of the MILLIONS of people who will be governed by their ruling. Your abortion examples are beyond stupid. 4th and 5th amendment rights are universal. No search without consent or court order (probable cause) can be performed, and at that point there is no 5th argument. Police exercising a search warrant on your house is not a 5th amendment issue. Police conducting a sobriety test with legitimate probable cause is not a 5th amendment issue. Try again.


No, the actual authors of the Constitution agreed with him. Learn a little history before spouting off. The authors believed that because, the document states that all powers not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal government reside with the states and the people, the "Bill of Rights" was not needed, and silly. The argument was that if they wasted their time expressly stating several things that the Government could NOT do (when the Constitution already stated that they could ONLY do what they were specifically empowered to do and nothing else), then stupid people would later assume that those were the ONLY things that the government could not do. Guess what, they were right. The adding of the Bill of Rights was a political move to help insure its passage by the paranoid fringe. The basic attitude was "Sure, whatever, it does not matter what you put in the amendments, but if it makes you feel better go for it."


Ummm, they are cut and dried, crystal clear, and unambiguous. Except when someone with a political agenda wants to try and make it say something that it does not. His job (and, to an extent, the job of the entire judiciary) is to PRESERVE the Constitution and Prevent the Legislative and Executive branches from exceeding their constitutionally granted authority. His job is NOT to create a new Constitution.