I need a quick rant break: If people want to `strictly enforce' the Constitution they need to remember the 9th and 10th amendments along with everything else! If after reading those amendments people say that there is no right to privacy (clearly implied since we aren't compelled to testify against ourselves, are granted due process, are protected from search and seizure without said due process, and can't house soldiers in the home without permission) then we need to remember that there is also: No right to drive. No right to property ownership (yeah, it is clearly implied, but not enumerated). No right to listen to music. No right to watch a play. No right to sleep with your wife. No right to work. The list goes on and on. Also, let us not forget that denying certain citizens, but not all, any granted is unconstitutional, including denying gays the right to marry who they choose. After all, there is no right to marriage.
In other words, it is literally impossible to `strictly enforce' the Constitution. The reason for this is simple: The Founding Fathers knew that it would be impossible to literally list every single right that a citizen might have, to try and do so would, 1) be arrogant as all hell, 2) result in a document so long it would never be read by anyone. They also knew that they couldn't account for the future, so they didn't try and list things that may one day be important, for instance: Amendment XXXXIV: The right to receive DNI (Direct Neural Interface) television programming. Amendment MMC: The right to drive space-folding cars. We just can't account for these things.
Oh yeah, and to those ignorant FAUX Propaganda channel advertisements: I am well qualified for the Supreme Court. In fact, EVERYONE is qualified for the Supreme Court, you don't have to be a judge, a lawyer, you don't even need to have taken classes on law. Hell, you don't even have to be a damn citizen!
"Article III.
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office."
The Constitution provides age/citizenship requirements for Congress and President, but this is the most that it says on Supreme Court judges. Come to think of it, if you apply a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you don't even have to be alive. The President could potentially nominate George Washington for a SCOTUS seat. Would you give me just an up-or-down vote if I were nominated for SCOTUS?
I'm sure that somewhere there must be more detailed SCOTUS requirements, but then that wouldn't be applying a strict Constitutional interpretation now would it?