Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights? This is the question Lyle Denniston posed to Yahoo readers today. Mr. Denniston’s self-serving answer is as dangerously delusional as the question is absurd.
The problem is, so many uninformed people share his misguided view of the constitution. Hopefully today we can dispel a few of the myths government worshipers salivate over, for example:
The only place that Americans can look for a binding interpretation of what the Constitution’s words mean – other than to the people acting through the amendment process to make a new constitutional declaration – are the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is so wrong on so many levels, but it is the most believed lie in all of American history. First, the Supreme Court is not the final arbitrator of the constitution…they evolved into this disgusting role thanks to Justice John Marshall establishing the precedent of judicial review, but time and popular opinion do not change the facts. The first place one should look when trying to interpret the constitution, another great source would be the federalist papers, and the most clarifying of all would be the ratifying debates. The constitution pretty clearly means what it says…not what politicians, Lyle Dennison, or the Supreme Court wants it to say. The Constitution is not a living breathing document whose meaning doesn’t change at societies whim. If the constitution needs to be updated in some way…well, we have what is known as an amendment process. If the document is simply out-dated and needs to be re-written, that is another debate, but we can’t just change words to make them suit our political fancy.
Perhaps the most ludicrous statement of the entire article is this:
The Second Amendment’s text, of course, does say that the right it protects “shall not be infringed.” Is that the same thing as saying that government may pass “no law respecting” gun rights?
Let us suppose that, constitutionally speaking, those two phrases do mean the same thing. But, as history has shown, there is flexibility in constitutional meaning: “No law,” for example, does not really mean “no law.”
Laugh out loud! So, cold means purple and juice is an island on Pluto? Absolutely “No Law,” means no law! He goes on to point out that the Supreme Court has shown “flexibility” in adhering to the original meaning of the constitution as justification for such an asinine statement, but as stated above…words really do mean what they mean. Just because the Supreme Court is wrong sometimes doesn’t mean we can just redefine anything we please on a whim.
It would be fruitless to answer him paragraph by paragraph as they all pretty much say the same thing: The Supreme Court has given the government the right to ignore the Constitution therefore they can constitutionally make unconstitutional laws against guns, speech, whatever…so long as it is ok with the majority of 9 unelected black robes.
The Supreme Court was actually invented to settle disputes between the states…not to re-write the constitution. Oh, and if you’re wondering who is actually the final arbitrator of the Constitution, it’s the states.
The Federal government was enumerated with a very specific and limited set of powers, everything not specifically mentioned was left to the several states and the people. So, no there are no limits on 2nd amendment rights.