Skip to main content
Report this ad

There's only one way to "make the Constitution relevant to modern society," Professor!



  • rk 5 years ago

    "Dr. Heyck, Professor Emeritus of history at Northwestern University, recently wrote "Untangling constitutional originalism and gun control," in which he argued that the Second Amendment protects only the right to own flintlock muskets and horse pistols."

    Excellent. I'm sure Dr. Heyck only expects First Amendment protections to apply to statements recorded by quill on parchment or printed with wood or hot lead type. Obviously it doesn't apply to email, texting, modern newspaper production, Twitter, etc.

  • rk 5 years ago

    Of course, AFTER I make my post I see the graphic next to the article that preemptively stole my thunder. Apologies for the redundancy.

  • rk 5 years ago

    On further reflection, I've decided that I really, really LIKE the professor's viewpoint and may adopt it!

    Remember, the Constitution is intended to be explicit and exhaustive with respect to THEIR powers, not OUR rights. We are PRESUMED to have all rights, EXCEPT where the government is explicitly granted the right to limit those rights.

    So if the Constitution is really limited only to technology available in 1789, then that limit is for the GOVERNMENT! The Constitution was never meant to limit US!

  • Chicago Gun Rights Examiner 5 years ago

    You're getting a little complicated for the Professor's argument, now. I doubt he thought the whole thing through that far.
    In fact, I'm not sure he realizes that the pro- and anti-gun sides hashed out this whole "Your originalism is wrong!" "No, yours is, and your momma dresses you funny!" argument twenty years ago.

    But more on that in Part II.

Report this ad