I didn’t ask you what the words say; anyone can read them. I asked you why you believe, based on the historical evidence, that the Constitution isn’t supposed to be interpreted by our courts.

> interpreted by our courts.

I’m interested in this part. Obviously some interpretation is going to happen, but would like to know the law that supports it. Also what (if anything) limits “interpretation” from allowing a 180 degree opposite to what is written to occur.

Asking more generally, not about going into a building I don’t strictly need to.

I answered your question. Your failure of comprehension is not my problem.

You did not. This is the answer of someone who has lost the argument and knows it, but refuses to admit it. The door is that way; kindly let yourself out.

Since you're pretending to be a lawyer and losing an argument I'll highlight the part that answers the question:

>"shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated" do not leave loopholes. It's quite clear.

There's a branch of government who's job is to write laws, who's job is to interpret laws and one who's job is to enforce laws.

Which one are you?

I am not pretending to be a lawyer and will happily send you my bona fides. Feel free to email me at otterley at otterley dot org.