Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I think I understand, but I'm not much better with law than I am with math. I was mainly addressing the person who wanted to rail against the 'other side' for not understanding the Constitution, when it was fairly clear that he didn't either. I study history mostly, and the history of that entire era fascinates me, so I have studied the history of the law as it was seen at the time, somewhat. I don't by any means claim to be an expert.
|
No prob. The reason it's a little confusing is that the Court made a godawful mistake when it declined to use the Privileges and Immunities clause to bind the states in a case over a century ago. Not long after, knowing they made a mistake but unwilling to admit it, they used the Due Process clause in later cases to accomplish the same thing--but with a very strained interpretation of the words. Thus, the oxymoronic "substantive due process" was born and became the foundation that our rights stand on against State infringement.
So it's not that you're really wrong... the Court was wrong, and won't fess up to it. But since they're the highest court in the land, they get to determine what interpretations are officially correct or not, so even though you're right, you're wrong.
