Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Gotta love the articles written today claiming bloody murder. I find it faintly humorous that people are getting pissed off because the SCOTUS interpreted the constitution exactly how it was written.
|
That is not really true, a strict constructionalist (which Scalia supposedly is) and what conservatives bitch and moan about consistently in the US as being needed, would have taken an original intent appraoch to the second amendment. Original intent would have been single shot pistols and muskets. There is not way that the original intent would have been the weaponry of today, they simply would not have been able to imagine it. The minute you expand it to allow the weaponry of today, you get on the slippery slope of abortion and the 14th amendment and judicial activism.....
"by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish." Justice Scalia
He should have thought of those words in relation to guns and not merely abortion, but I guess separate standards are needed for separate issues.