Well, that would be an accurate statement under a strict constructionist view (as I did get one right), but very misleading in that I have actually gotten ALOT right (not merely one). ;-)

I do, they are known collectively as the Canons of Construction, you are utterly ignorant on this point.

But if you believe you know so much, please give specific citations to what YOU believe the "well established law regarding the interpretation of law when the Constitution was made" is. Give a specific quote that supports your view.

Well, if you mean Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, it wasn't hard as I have a printed copy on the second to top shelf of the third bookcase from the left in my study. However, Blackstone is not, as you keep mischaracterizing it, is NOT writings on INTERPRETATION of laws in general, but rather a comprehensive analysis of the LAWS OF ENGLAND specifically as of the time he wrote them. There is a fundamental distinction (which you are seemingly intellectually incapable of making) between AN interpretation of a specific legal text and a METHOD of interpretation of legal texts generally. Blackstone is the former, not the later (although his commentaries UTILIZE the later...namely the canons of construction...to arrive at his former).

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane