but they are not. laws require interpretation. always have. your approach would mean there should be no recourse for people responding to being arrested with "that's not how I understand the law". you are welcome to claim this but then there's a court case. where judges and juries hear arguments, precedent, interpret the law and the situation. this is all part of living in a democracy that many conservative folks today want to redefine. it's like they only did half the homework.
There is no provision for dictates by interpretation in article III.
Is your argument that these dictates are legitimate because the 1st amendment only expressly prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge free speech?
it has been debated. go find a relevant case and try to get the argument in from of SCOTUS.
maybe you aren't doing this but the libertarian tendency to build movements around alternative interpretations and refuse to accept the more common view to the point of armed resistance, freaks me out. it will tear the country apart.
Add comment