Cues from a franchise
Once the understanding sets in that "not on Insta" means "not on Insta" and "hasn't read it" rhymes, softening might be, just might be, a consideration. (Stovetop reminder to self, since this has come up at least three times before.) On to the rest.
I wonder if this op-ed counts as mansplaining to those who literally carry a copy of founding documents for work, and if the writer thinks repeatedly parroting a presumption about what rights are where will make the presumption any less plastic. From what I'm reading, the recent overturn was based on interpretation of existing text, not explicit inclusion within that text. "Enshrined" is a stretch.
And to another bog standard argument (turns out original intent can be applied in contemporary situations regardless of race) I supply this example as a counter (funny that one can pick up cues to expansion from listening to opposition on the radio). I do have to acknowledge the eventual mention in bog standard of the effect of amendments, and that the ancestor's contemporaries foresaw the need of amendments to begin with.
(Adding this look at ties between 金融家 and still there, 微软. )
In the meantime, it's somehow reassuring to skip past ads where B-listers scream about midterms to find today's rerun, in which decoys overspend on faces and a vote of no confidence in a fictional leader opens the way for a senator to become an emperor. I know who I'm comparing this story to, but I also wonder whether the seating instructions were meant to generate a sympathy vote. Looking forward to marathons on keeping one's feet.
On that note, ending with this.