The right of the people
Published Thu, Jun 26 2008 7:31 AM
I was watching for this one. As far as I am concerned it is the single most important case that the Supreme Court has handled this year (although there have been a couple of abominable decisions that come close… Boumediene comes to mind). I still don't think that it should have been necessary, after all the plain wording of the second amendment to the Constitution is there for all to see.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A plain and simple reading of this should make it clear. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing there says anything about hunting or personal defense. Nothing there says anything about "assault weapons". Further, nothing there says anything about the kind of weapons at all.
People have argued that the bit that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" implies that the right of the people isn't an individual right. I interpret it differently. I believe that that part of the second amendment actually has implications for the kind of weapons the people have a right to posses. You see, that section does imply that the people are to be able to use their weapons in the defense of the state. And that implies that the people ought to posses the very best.
Naturally politicians disagree with this. And sadly, so too did the court in 1939 and Justice Stevens today. In 1939, the court held that the kind of arms we may posses can be restricted (shall be infringed). Today Justice Stevens still asserts that reading the plain meaning of the words "the right of the people" are secondary to the prefatory clause and that the court's opinion is based on "a strained and unpersuasive reading of the amendment's text".
Predictably, the court was split on the issue of whether the plain wording of the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. It was a 5–4 decision. Even without reading the ruling it ought to be plain which justices were in the majority and which were dissenting. If you're into keeping score, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts all were of the opinion that the second amendment protects an individual right. Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer all held that the framers didn't mean what they said when they wrote "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That leaves the ever wishy-washy Justice Kennedy — the man that can't seem to make up his mind whether to trust in the founders' wisdom or substitute his own policy preferences for the plain meaning of the Constitution — to provide "the swing vote" once again.
Think about it folks. Elections matter. This ruling came down to the vote of one man. One man decided that I can keep my guns. One man struck down Washington D.C.'s gun ban. This time he sided with the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, and with the founders. He doesn't always do so. He may have done so this time because the majority opinion still left the door open for infringement of the people's right. The New York Times put it this way — "The court concluded that the amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but it also said that the right is not absolute, opening the door for more fights in the future."
Elections matter. This single decision may swing my vote this November. After all, I'm pretty certain what sort of people Sen. Obama would choose to nominate for the Court. I believe that Sen. McCain would choose originalists, but then again he's disappointed me before. One things for sure, the four years starting on January 20, 2009 are certainly going to be interesting ones — no matter who we choose.
I applaud this ruling. I deplore its necessity. And I deplore once again the fact that we live under a judicial oligarchy.
Update: Carl has a link to the actual opinion. Read what Justice Alito had to say for yourself, and Justice Steven's arguments too. I find it amazing that, as remarked upon earlier today by Sean Hannity, the four dissenters in this case fail to understand that the Constitution exists to place limits upon the power of government. Their world view seems to be that the framers could not possibly have wanted to limit the power of government, so they couldn't have meant what they actually said.
This linkfest is for the 26th of June, 2008.
If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.
Just remember the trackback policy.
For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1181
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/6/26/1181.aspx
walls of the city trackbacked with "law abiding gun owner"
In celebration of the recent Heller decision, I performed one of my many duties as a law abiding gun owner and procured another method for safely storing my rifle and pistol. This is not to say I did not have...
The World According To Carl trackbacked with "2nd Amendment Upheld By Slim 5-4 Vote"
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules that the District of Columbia gun ban was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia's brilliantly written majority opinion can be read here as are the dissenting opinions (which, in my humbl...
Adam's Blog trackbacked with "A Posthumous Victory"
Podcast Show Notes
Charlton Heston fought long for freedom. Without his work at the NRA, we wouldn’t have justices Alito and Roberts. Today victory was won.
Plus the post-partisan candidate plans a partisan coup, while offering Americans a plan t...
Beagle Scout trackbacked with "Invasion: Mexican Army member(s) commit(s) Phoenix home invasion and murder"
In Phoenix, a home invasion and murder turns out to be an invasion of another kind: An invasion of the US by one or more (active duty status unreported) members of the Mexican military services.
...
Beagle Scout trackbacked with "No ice for Santa"
Steve Connor breathlessly reports on climate change (what used to be called weather) for the UK Independent.
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
...
Pirate's Cove trackbacked with "Surrender Monkey Friday: The Neurosis Of The NY Times"
Surrendie is thrilled today of the neurotic Sybil like articles available in the NY Times. First, he wants you to read this
The individual right to bear arms identified by the Supreme Court on Thursday will have little practical impact in most of th...
McCain Blogs trackbacked with "Surrender Monkey Friday: The Neurosis Of The NY Times"
Surrendie is thrilled today of the neurotic Sybil like articles available in the NY Times. First, he wants you to read this
The individual right to bear arms identified by the Supreme Court on Thursday will have little practical impact in most of the ...
third world county trackbacked with "Time Warp: Bill Gates on XP in 2003"
Bill Gates on his XP experience. A must read for all who have suffered similar fates.
...
The Amboy Times trackbacked with "Sniffer Dogs Offend Muslims"
Hat tip, Sounder.
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (27 JUNE 2008) LEGALIZE IT EDITION"
The Libertarian in me has long been a proponent of the decriminalization of hemp and yes, marijuana as well. Here’s a study explaining why we are just plain dumb for not utilizing at least hemp to solve the energy crisis.
News for us blogger...
Conservative Cat trackbacked with "Preparing for the IWFL Championship, with Umbrellas"
Force general manager Linda Bache poses with the Gremlin after a gameAt 3pm Central Time, June 28, 2008-- exactly 24 hours from now-- the first round of the IWFL playoffs will commence. The Chicago Force will be meeting their arch-enemies--...
Cao's Blog trackbacked with "Pizzas for the troops for the 4th of July!!!"
I heard an interview with this guy on Johnny B the other day.
He got into contact with General petraeus and they’ve managed to coordinate an amazing thing; they’re getting some infamous deep dish Lou Malnati’s pizzas to the troops fo...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Layla responded with:
To me this is not a complicated isssue only because I understand what the Constitution says. However, the four dissenters completely missed it.
Perri I find it totally mind boggling how any one could misinterpret the Constitution. But it is done everyday unfortunately.
The Constitution is written as clear as day, no mincing of words - having said that, which is not limited to the Constitution, but also the The Bill of Rights---Justices have misinterpreted the Constitution too many times and have not properly stood by it.
There is nothing to be misunderstood. Americans have the RIGHT to bear arms - legally of course. How much simpler could that have been written Perri?
I truly believe since the late 1940's Supreme Court Justices gave way to the subtle onslaughts of the new organization formed then - the ACLU - there has not been a real representation for the people by the people and our Constitutional rights are in question and in some cases even eliminated.
Truly this all just makes me sick. For such a great nation as ours to behave so poorly - in particular our Justices only goes to prove that education means little to nothing without common sense.
Carl responded with:
[People have argued that the bit that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" implies that the right of the people isn't an individual right.]
That stance held by those against gun rights is easily shot down by pointing out the overwhelming number of quotes from the founding fathers of the United States that specify it is the CITIZEN of which the 2nd amendment applies.
grant responded with:
Thank you for this post and for the recent commentary on our upcoming election. You have made a difference for me. I am a not so well read individual who recently became a father, realized that I have been on the sidelines for most of my adult life, and has decided that I better do my part to influence how our country evolves. I moved from one county to another since the past presidential election and reading your posts inspired me to drive to my local city hall and re-register to vote. The one point that sticks in my mind is the seemingly attainable goal of influencing 3% of the population that may not already vote to get involved and to understand how brilliant our founding fathers were.
Comments to this entry are closed.