How far do you want to take this version of biblical literalism? The first amendment also says that "Congress" shall not abridge the freedom of speech, press, etc. By your just stated argument then, you should be absolutely fine with the police as part of the Executive branch shutting down critical press, dispersing protests without cause, and silencing free speech.
That is exactly what was meant. That is why, before the 14th Amendment and the doctine of Incorporation, there were established State religions. It was assumed by the Framers that people would actually be involved in the political process and would not allow the types of oppression you are referring to to occur.
For that matter, what exactly is meant by "arms" in the 2nd? Tactical nuclear weapons, or only the arms present in the time of the framers, flintlock rifles/pistols and simple cannon?
That is why it is important to look at the context in which these things were written. I think it's fairly obvious what they meant, but I will hazard a logical explanation.
In terms of nuclear weapons, they are regulated by the Atomic
Energy Commission. It is not a great leap to say that they are regulating an energy source, which may be used as a weapon, rather then the weapon itself. Either if you quibble with that explanation, the U.S. government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, which would include regulating the sale and distribution of uranium, a necessary component of nuclear weapons.
What is meant by "promote the general welfare" and what are the limits?
Once again, context is important. As an example from Federalist Paper #41:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
They told us what was meant, or at least a couple of them did. And as this was an argument put forth by those who were against the Constitution for this apparent lack of definition, we know that other Framers wanted it defined.
What is even meant by the "people" considering the status of everyone except property owning white males when the Constitution was written?
What "status"? Non-propertied whites were able to vote. Women were not, and this is entirely within the scope of the Constitution considering it always refers to males. Others weren't considered citizens, such as African slaves.
But, subsequent Amendments to the Constitution expanded this definition to include those others. This is not interpretive, but was expressed, especially if you look at non-legally binding writings by those that wrote and developed these Amendments.
Your argument would also do away entirely with incorporated amendments, and all of our guaranteed freedoms would only apply by Federal action.
No, it would not do away with incorporated Amendments. Those Amendments changed the original intent and meaning of the Constitution. I do believe that he may be unaware that, though the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", that the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that, now binding the States to adhere to restrictions of the Bill of Rights.
What's funny though, is that same court refused to do a blanket incorpororation, which is why States can still disallow the ownership of firearms because they did not incorporate the Second Amendment.
This is why we have courts, why they are tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and why the bare text only goes so far. We run up against the limits of literalism almost immediately.
I disagree. I don't believe they are tasked with interpreting the Constitution. They are tasked with determining whether the actions of the government fall within the meaning of the Articles of the Constitution. Now, this may sound like semantics, but let me explain.
The Framers gave us the context in which the U.S. Constitution was to be interpreted. I will grant you that they are non-binding in the legal sense. For instance, the above mentioned "general welfare". They stated that if taken out of context it could mean anything. That's why we have ObamaCare and the Department of Education, and had the New Deal (which was originally labeled unconstitutional until SCOTUS was blackmailed). If we leave it up to the courts to interpret the actual document, it will mean whatever their whim decides it will, which could be, and has unfortunately been, done.
"It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson
