>>32
Hilarious.
>>33
>obfusticating
Fair enough. But what you've done (and continue to do) is just straw man arguing. You don't have to believe it but if the Supreme Court were to make that ruling then, by law, two plus two would be five.
What I've been talking about are specific cases. For example, what are the limits of the First Amendment? Is a corporation protected by it? What about slander? Is false advertising ok? If the Constitution were so clear and the answers were so cut and dry, why would we need a Supreme Court at all?