You can't unlearn something once it is learned -- at least it's hard for me. I guarantee you they've read the documents I quoted.
I'd agree and it's part of the problem with their approach.
Only in the sense that the Founders always thought the US Constitution would be and needed to be amended over time. For some reason, I thought that was important to state.
Then saying it that way makes the point more clearly, don't you think?
I disagree with you here. Justices still use the Federalist Papers in their interpretations.
Then you aren't actually disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with textualists, with Cruz and Scalia.
On the contrary, the Justices frequently say no when the legislature or appeals court oversteps its authority.
Again then, you aren't actually saying no to me, because that's part and parcel of the same process I support.
