[krapp]

I don't think they're disagreeing with me, just pointing out that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to a majority vote, which only further undermines the premise that any such thing as an unambiguous (much less "objective") interpretation exists because not even the entire Court always agrees with itself.

[josefritzishere]

Not disagreeing at all, just pointing out how extreme they would have to be to actually undo the 14th Amendment. Modern laws are highly complex and often genuinely challenging to read and understand. The Constitution is very readable even for lay people. Re-inturpreting it to revoke rights requires a willfull misunderstanding by justices.

[krapp]

It would be extreme, but that doesn't make it unlikely. Roe v. Wade was settled law for nearly 50 years, then it was simply nullified.

And the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution based on what lay people would think, but based on what a simple majority of them imagine the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would think if they were summoned by necromancy to adjudicate modern matters on first principles. That's why the canonical interpretation of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any modern interpretation of "regulation" that any lay person would understand.