Seems pretty straightforward — explaining would be a bother because not enough thought process went into the thing I was responding to. For instance, the author doesn’t seem to realize that none of the rights in the Constitution are or were ever meant to be absolute. Gun and free speech rights are already infringed. Unless you can own a nuke or yell “fire” in a crowded theater then the only question is where to draw the line…and that’s a decision for the voters to make.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the amendment process. Large chunks of the Constitution were decided by a majority. There also seems to be a misunderstanding about the role of the judiciary.

If the majority want to bring back Jim Crow, they absolutely can. Shouldn’t, but can, either officially or in bits and pieces. However the law ought to be, something is only de facto illegal if the courts and political system say it is.

As gor green energy: I assume I shouldn’t be allowed to incinerate toxic waste on my property if the wind carries it to you and poisons your family. So if there’s a consensus that greenhouse gases are unhealthy, then it should be illegal to generate them. Individual rights aren’t absolute, they are accompanied by limitations and responsibilities.

So, like I said, not enough thought went into the post. I didn’t feel like I had the time to go through everything, especially since it will all be rejected despite being historically, legally and logically sound.