4 ms·

"A healthy breakfast, being necessary for a productive day, the right to eat eggs shall not be infringed" Would you interpret _that_ as meaning we could only e

• winstonewert 5y ago
  No, but the supreme court might if it served their interests.
• enkid 5y ago
  It could be interpreted that it'd be ok to ban eggs in other circumstances, certainly. The problem is that it's meaning is so ambiguous that you can't properly tell, especially when considering the arms they had at the time of writing were completely different from what we consider arms these days. If the founders said the right to eat eggs is not to be infringes, would that mean the government would be unable to regulate genetically modified eggs? I don't think so.