Hi John, nice to see you about again! In replying to me you said, "If you read the Federalist papers, I'd say interpretation was expected. The problem seems to be when the interpretation gets really creative and just how deeply someone reads into an Article or Amendment, either textually, structurally or sometimes by relying on ouija board."

I have of course and couldn't agree more....exactly my point. And the interpretations ranges obviously from Hard Line to Super Ouija. Because of the way the Constitution was written and understanding that the U.S. was a collection of self-governing states makes it even more interesting. As you noted property can have a very broad meaning and you nailed it well. Until 3 years ago, the Ohio Revised Code stated, "Parents are entitled to their children as they are their other property." Ohio was not alone in this either as the majority of the states had something quite similar which effectually reduced children to the status of a sofa.

The scenario I mentioned was the Baby Richard case and it started the ball rolling. The child was returned to his biological father, but laws were soon enacted across the country by many states changing the notification methods of bio-dads as well as putting on reasonable time constraints, both of which placed a burden of reponsibility on those who father children while protecting the rights of all. Moreover, a bright line approach was taken in rewriting state law to remove the "Children as Chattel" lines from their books which is now causing a shake-up in the interpretation of the 14th from Federal benches and the SC as well. To me this simply proves that the Constitution and it's Amendments are living and breathing things and not stagnant, locked in time.

Spaw