You are correct in that as a non-lawyer (I am a non-lawyer as well) you cannot read the law and reliably, confidently understand what it means, much in the same way a non-programmer cannot read read code and understand what it means.
There is a problem with this which is that non-lawyers are required to comply with the law but that's not really the issue here.
If you're trying to argue courts have gone through mental contortions to derive radical insane re-interperetations of the law that completely change its intent and meaning 180 degrees, and that the entire legal orthodoxy has gone through the same contortions in order to be able to practice law in its current state, you can do that and it's reasonable, but you should use better examples like e.g. the commerce clause, not slavery. Slavery was most definitely intentionally allowed, no interesting interpretation necessary.
>Slavery was most definitely intentionally allowed, no interesting interpretation necessary.
Legally yes. I was talking referencing how the founding fathers were not consistent in matching the government they created with some of their prior statements which were part of the reason they were in a position to create the government. Largely I said this to preempt the oft response that the founding father's weren't consistent with their own view of rights.
There is a problem with this which is that non-lawyers are required to comply with the law but that's not really the issue here.
If you're trying to argue courts have gone through mental contortions to derive radical insane re-interperetations of the law that completely change its intent and meaning 180 degrees, and that the entire legal orthodoxy has gone through the same contortions in order to be able to practice law in its current state, you can do that and it's reasonable, but you should use better examples like e.g. the commerce clause, not slavery. Slavery was most definitely intentionally allowed, no interesting interpretation necessary.