AKA DC Gun Ban Case

Well ladies and gentlemen it looks like the high court has decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to THE PEOPLE. What are your thoughts and opinions on the ruling?

Disregard, I did not realize that this thread was already going....

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C. v. Heller, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense of their normal and ordinary use by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation...

Scalia is an incompetent judicial activist. The Constitution wasn't made with the lawmakers understanding that it would be interpreted according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, knew that there were well established common law rules of interpretation and that they applied to the U. S. Constitution.

The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." It is contended that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies excepting those in which a State may be plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

--John Jay in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

So if I understand you correctly, Scalia's interpretation is activism, but Jay's interpretation is not? Why not just hang a sign around your neck saying, "I disagree with this decision, and so it must be activism"?

SCOTUS has no right to interpret the Constitution under the powers granted to them via Article III, nor is the Constitution in any way, shape, or form ambiguous. Only the deceitful claim "loose construction" when they seek to impose their will on the rest of society. As a matter of fact, EVERY notion of the "living constitution" or loose constructionist doctrine has come from people seeking to EXPAND power; either their own or their superiors'.

The second amendment denies the power of any government in this country, at any level the power to abridge the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It in no way mandates membership in the armed services, militia, or other governmentally-sanctioned group. If it did, the line that states, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" would not be necessary, and would instead read, "the right of the STATES to keep and bear arms". Since we know that states are expressly forbidden from keeping troops in times of peace, and since we know that the amendment says THE PEOPLE (like it does in the fourth amendment, but I suppose that only applies to government employees too huh?), we KNOW through UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE that would reflect at most an eighth grade education, that the Second Amendment, like Justice Scalia wrote, protects an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

Jesus man, read your Constitution or go home.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

It appears that you have no ideas of your own on this matter, and are incapable of developing a coherent argument, which would explain your constant "cut n' paste" postings and inability to explain your own position. You're obviously an anti-gunner who found a website filled with misquotations of the founding fathers and thought, "somebody did the work for me".

Unless you intend to defend your position in an adult, and academic manner, please leave discussion to those of us who HAVE studied the matter at hand.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Scalia’s methodology of Constitutional interpretation is dictated by the outcome he desires. He decides what he wants a word, term, phrase or clause to mean, finds a source that defines or uses the language in a way that squares with his desired outcome and then applies whatever rule of construction takes him to that source.

For example:

When interpreting the phrase “right of the people”, in D. C. v. Heller, Scalia ignores the “normal and ordinary meaning” of the words comprising the phrase, and instead relies exclusively on the context of the phrase. That is to say, he considers nothing but the way the phrase, and the word “people” is used in other parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Recall that Scalia in the preceding paragraph, said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases as they were used in their "normal and ordinary meaning" by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation." Scalia said nothing whatsoever about establishing their meaning from the context.

However, when interpreting the word “arms”, Scalia ignores the context and the "normal and ordinary use" and relies on the way the word was used in a passage from Alexander Pope’s translation of Homer’s Iliad and by Timothy Cunningham in a passage from A new and complete Law Dictionary. Again, recall that Scalia said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases according to their "normal and ordinary" use by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation." Homer and Timothy Cunningham weren’t ordinary American citizens of the founding generation.

Scalia doesn't even follow his own espoused principle of construction. He uses whatever rule of construction will produce the meaning he wants.

When considering the definition of a word like "people" within a legal document, the definition of such a word outside of said legal document is irrelevant and has always been in the entirety of the history of contract and public law; categories under which the Constitution can definitely be considered. Thus, the "common understanding" of a term is irrelevant to a term that is contextually defined within the document in question. Your premise holds no legal or logical merit.

Further, even using your argument of the common use of terms, words like "right" and "arms" are used in the Constitution of Virginia, authored by Jefferson (a contemporary and colleague of Madison), which clearly dictates the right of people not to be debarred the use of arms. There is NO ambiguity in the Constitution to those of us interested in HONEST discourse.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Go read Blackstone's first rule of construction.