Mark Small

“Original intent” is a legal philosophy under which judges and justices would look only to the “plain wording” of The Constitution and the “original intent” of the delegates to the 1787 Convention to determine what The Constitution means. 2/13

Previously I’ve explained why this view is bunk but today let’s view it from a different angle If we are to adhere to “original intent,” we adhere to it across the board. After ll, that is the beauty of “original intent”: a one-size-fits-all concept for a very complex world. 3/13

First, 3 GOP candidates for seek the GOP nomination should shut up and withdraw. Nurse Beth Henderson, Kelly Mitchell and Victoria Spartz have no say. They are women. Only males had a say in 1787 - original intent can be a bitch. 4/13

Second, any remaining candidates who rents a home cannot be in the field. Delegates to The Convention in 1787 were landed. They might permit the common rabble - like the men in Shays’s rebellion - to fight & die in warfare, but not to vote. 5/13

Third, any such of my opponents should cash it in and withdraw. If they persist and try to slip through, such a move could be a felony, as laws against illegal voting tend to be. The people should be ready for life’s end. Felonies usually carried the death penalty. 6/13

Fourth, any Roman Catholics amongst my remaining opponents probably should withdraw. Indiana wasn’t yet a State, & in some States Roman Catholicism was repressed. Two delegates were “RC,” so odds would be against such of my opponents. 7/13

Fifth - this should go w/o saying - any of my opponents who is Jewish or adheres to the Islamic faith is out of the race. During debates at one of the two North Carolina ratification conventions, rights of “mohammedans” were dissed. 8/13

Sixth, we need to eliminate issues. Favor term limits, judicial appointments with an end date, or strong defense of the “second amendment”? The Framers didn’t. The first and second positions were rejected. The Bill of Rights was not a part of The Constitution. 9/13