Consider sin taxes, which Time Magazine calls "an established tactic" to reduce consumption of popular vices [1].<p>The hostile takeover argument isn't even necessary to make my point.  Consider the fact that a corporation can own another corporation.  Corporations are people under the law.  Therefore, if we literally interpret the constitution, the ban on slavery makes a corporation owning another corporation illegal.  Of course this is rather silly and shows why strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution are irrelevant.<p>I am not trying to make political statements.  The <i>one and only</i> thing I want to point out is the flaw in the highest voted comment for this article that advocates a strict constructionist interpretation of the 1st amendment [2].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889187,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889187,00....</a><p>[2] <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1098741" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1098741</a>