Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
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.
|
I don't get what you are saying. My understanding of Roe verses Wade is that the court erred in determining that the point a person becomes human is the moment he/she leaves the birth canal. The mistake was that the Constitution doesn't tell us that or even imply it. Therefore the legislative branch should determine the point we all have human value rather than the judges.
Concerning the second amendment the original intent was that a person should be able to bare arms in self defence. Single shot pistols and musket balls would do little against someone invading you home with a modern weapon.
That's like arguing that the people who enshrined free speech in the Constitution didn't foresee the Internet so the Internet isn't protected in the constitution.