The reason why I brought it up is because it illustrates just how flexible &quot;strict textual constitutionalists&quot; actually are. Like most political arguments, it quickly falls into &quot;Well, I like this, so there.&quot;<p>By a strict textual reading, without amendment, the Air Force has been unconstitutional since September 16, 1947, and so should be immediately remanded to several states, because there&#x27;s no strict authority spawning from the 18th century for establishing an air force.<p>The second amendment, also talks about bearing arms in the explicit context of &quot;a well regulated [state] militia&quot; and nothing else, but that gets washed over because, &quot;I like my hobby.&quot;