When I said, ". . . whatever meaning you or I have regarding the context of forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, et cetera, is an abridgement, being that we are not the total some of We . . .", that should have been obvious. This is not minutia, this is an elaboration of context. It had nothing to do with the framers themselves. There is nothing "defective" regarding the Constitution or its Amendments as they stand. Surly as an educated man you are aware of the fact that what you have espoused by saying, " Arguing . . . is meaningless [until] the intention is revealed. WIth this method, the mistakes of the past are understandable and correctable by us, the people." is Hegelian dialectics, the very reason the Constitution seems to be flawed to you now in the first place! Intention is already revealed. It is not that what it says is flawed. The value of what it says is gone for society. THAT is the real crux of the problem.