Two contrasting aspects of the US Constitution that beg the question: what does the Constitution say, and what does it mean, and are the always the same? It appears to be the case that being 'open to interpretation' means contrary things, but surely you know what the intention was behind the text?
This one suggests there are American who think the rot started with the 14th Amendment, reached a low in the 1960s- but thinks it is being true to the Constitution
‘Archaic’: the Tennessee town that made homosexuality illegal | Tennessee | The Guardian
This one defends the 14th, for what did it intend to do?
‘It has to be done’: can Reconstruction-era laws hold Trump and allies accountable? | Law (US) | The Guardian