Just what part of the English structured sentence are you having trouble comprehending? If you have "one" complaint form someone that misrepresents a simple parlor tick as some kind of radical presentation of magic or Satanic worship, they feel pressure to act, as the broads of education are very intimidated by the fact of having to face a legal battle from the communists that have vowed to impose their ideology of "civil rights" upon the entire population of this nation....regardless of the will of its citizenship that indeed make up "we the people". The "letter" of the law "DESTROYS" in ignoring the "spirit" in which it was drafted, by misrepresenting the intended meaning of our constitution by opinion made not by the same reference which was used when the original words were drafted. It indeed is hard to "interpret" words of intent with "secular" pragmatism when "Blackstone's theory on common law" was consulted for drafting such as the original. Its a simple fact.

Our modern court system has left the original methodology of setting precedence (Blackstone's commentaries on the Law) and have began ignoring all precedent established by such in favor of making "new" legal precedence by "pragmatic" secular reasoning, and drawing not upon Blackstone's theory to "arbitrate any impasse" but upon the words of other sitting judges of recent past history. An example would be Roe. v. Wade, 200 years of legal precedence was "totally ignored" to draw opinion, not from the constitution...but an amendment that was intended to establish rights...NOT LIMIT THEM NOR TAKE THEM AWAY (the 14th), such as the right to life...granted by the creator and declared 'unalienable' by even our own declaration of independence. But did this stop the "secular pragmatic progressives" indeed from taking this right to life away and laying it into the hands of a single individual as a personal "CHOICE", simply because the sitting judges "dehumanized" gestating human life....BY OPINION ONLY, certainly not from words found in the constitution nor following amendments, they OPINED NOT ON WORDS PRESENT BUT WORDS "OMITTED".....and according to the 10th Article in our States/Peoples Bill of Rights....words OMITTED BELONG TO WHO? It sure as hell is not the Central Federal Court system, but inversely such as the state from which this case arose should have never been taken in the first place, as state law should have been considered paramount, as the previous 200 years worth of precedence declared. As such, a few men imposed their will upon the Entire nation by OPINING a new meaning to the constitution...not from words found therein, but from words omitted. No such POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW EXISTS, in a "democratic republic", as they (SCOTUS) ceased being arbitrators of a legal impasse and "legislated" new
law by opinion only(for they sure as hell ignored all previous established precedent) ...clearly circumventing the Legislative branches of both Federal and State examples. They simply took it upon themselves to "evolve" our legal system, not by the constitutionally mandated method (Amendment)...but by their opinion....As they brought us into the New World Order of Human Secularism, that allows life to be declared secondary to personal choice. BD
Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia