+19

Continuing from the preceding post

With the amount of material available here, there is a potential supply of arguments to who knows how long. However, one thing I don't find easy to miss pointing out is how the opinion of the court seems to reverse things making it like it is more normal for the creators of the amendments to point out their applicability on the states than it is the other way around. The opinion probably would have been in better position to wonder about the absence of such explicit declaration of intention had it taken the position of excluding the general government instead. But here, where else in the constitution it talked to a nonexistent entity? You can for example send the instructions in Section 9 and 8 in a letter addressed to Congress and those in 10 to the states, but to whom you should address the letter containing the amendments to target the general government only? The executing entity is the general government and for it to act on the amendments without including the states those amendments themselves need to contain something to stop that flow down.