Another interesting overview. I don't have any sort of legal background (or any interest in delving into one), but that whole 'vague wording' thing regarding the constitution and its amendments always struck me. It seems its wording was designed to be argued about and clarified periodically as time went on and conditions in the country changed in the future. But they couldn't forsee back then that their strict (and ironically un-vague) instructions for changing articles or adding amendments would one day become impossible in what became a huge, widely spread-out country with disparate groups and widely disparate interests (particularly city vs. rural). And the second amendment always, even to this legalese-ignorant reader, seemed particularly absurd in its archaic, outdated wording and the Supreme Court's arbitrary interpretations of it.
Another interesting overview. I don't have any sort of legal background (or any interest in delving into one), but that whole 'vague wording' thing regarding the constitution and its amendments always struck me. It seems its wording was designed to be argued about and clarified periodically as time went on and conditions in the country changed in the future. But they couldn't forsee back then that their strict (and ironically un-vague) instructions for changing articles or adding amendments would one day become impossible in what became a huge, widely spread-out country with disparate groups and widely disparate interests (particularly city vs. rural). And the second amendment always, even to this legalese-ignorant reader, seemed particularly absurd in its archaic, outdated wording and the Supreme Court's arbitrary interpretations of it.