Very accurate. The problem is that the USSC doesn’t think so. We went wrong a couple of hundred years ago when Congress allowed the USSC to start re-writing the Constitution.
For example, there is nothing in the 1st amendment about “freedom of expression”. That isn’t because “freedom of Expression” (hereafter FoE) wasn’t a known topic at that time, but because the framers didn’t think FoE should be covered by the 1st amendment.
IIRC, the USSC stuck FoE in the Constitution early in the 19th century. I think they were trying to keep up with the Joneses or the French in this case. FoE was trotted forth in England about a generation BEFORE the framers wrote the Constitution. So if they had wanted FoE covered by the 1st amendment, it would have been there along with the press, assembly, speech and religion.
Congress should have impeached the Justices that voted to add FoE to the Constitution. That is the way the system is designed to work.
I’m not saying FoE is bad, wrong or shouldn’t be in the Constitution, just that there is a way to get it there, and that way isn’t through judicial fiat. Once you allow judges to start tinkering with hte Constitution, they will never stop.
If the left wants to outlaw gun ownership, let them pass a constitutional amendment doing so. Let them try.
Roe vs. Wade was the USSC making and exception to the 14th amendment for unborn children, the most vulnerable of the defenseless.
If the left wants to allow infanticide, let them try and pass a Constitutional amendment doing so.
Most of the problems in America today are caused by special interests using the legal system to circumvent the Constitution.
