Subject: Re: "blatantly" unconstitutional
I'm not sure what you (or the folks pushing this theory) thinks the ambiguity is.

In his defense, he's considering the context in 1868. Specifically, slavery. He appears to be saying that this should only apply to slavery (and, if I extrapolate, he may even be saying it is obsolete). You're saying -quite correctly- that in almost 160 years, the courts have not seen it that way.

Similar to my argument regarding abortion and the 13th Amendment. That was specifically targeting slavery, but it's verbiage also includes "involuntary servitude". If a woman is pregnant, and doesn't want to be, then (IMO) she is in involuntary servitude. Therefore, abortion is protected by the 13th.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the courts generally consider the context of the law, but focus on the text of the law. So Dope's argument falls flat, and my argument has merit. Again, IMO. (And I'm not trying to speak for Dope, so if he disagrees with my characterization of his position, I will defer on that point.)