An extended quote:<p>---<p>During an American election cycle you will see a lot of “opinions” that looks like this:<p>“The Constitution clearly gives us the right to do X. Therefore, that’s the way it should be.”<p>That sounds like an opinion, right?<p>But it really isn’t.<p>Here’s why.<p>The Founders wisely made it hard to change the Constitution, but they did give us the tools to do it. And we have changed it in the past, e.g. slavery.<p>So it is stupid to hold the opinion that we should do what the Constitution says, no matter what, when the authors of the document had no such intention.<p>---<p>I don't think he answered his question (That sounds like an opinion, right?). Say it isn't an opinion, then what is it? If an opinion can't be right or wrong, then an <i>interpretation</i> can be. "the Constitution clearly gives us the right to do X," is an interpretation that needs to be supported by evidence if I'm to be convinced of it.<p>The author showed that the proposition "The Constitution clearly gives us the right to do X" is a stupidity and not an opinion. I think that's tangential to the more general point: interpretations need examinable evidence.