It can be proven to be false by looking at the understanding of the ratifiers of the Constitution, whose understanding, legally, is correct, as they were the ones who agreed to that contract. Jut like you can interpret the words "it is sunny outside," as "there's thunderstorm outside," so you can, apparently, interpret a document that clearly limits federal power as a sweeping grant of power to the federal government. But clearly that's a false "interpretation."
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
every vague policy, unless sealed in meaning by legal documents themselves, allows a certain amount of pivot. The founding fathers can state it as they please, but they do not have the authority over the entire constitution anymore, because they’re dead. Jefferson admitted that the nation is for the living, and the wishes of the dead are not our basis for law, only the documents we keep. As such, even when its creators had a different interpretation, we can still pivot the interpretation within its written leeway as necessary, because the constitution is built to evolve. We are not chai… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
You think the constitution is a "living, breathing," document, then. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The States ratified the Constitution on the explicit condition that the federal government would only have those powers explicitly spelled out in the contract they made among themselves. The government is the agent of the States, created by the States for the benefit of the States, and that agent was created in the contract on the explicit understanding that if it went beyond those powers the ratifying States gave to it, the States had every right to withdraw from the contra… Read more
