[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Also, remember that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not unlimited rights. The Supreme Court excplicitly said in their opinion in Heller that some regulation is Constitutional.
But the Supreme Court at one time also held that slavery was constitutional.

And it took a Civil War and Constitutional Amendment (the 13th) to change that. Actually, in the most technical sense, slavery was constitutional until the passage of the 13th Amendment. It is no secret that the issue of slavery was huge sticking point during the Constitutional Convention and that while many of the founders would have preferred to abolish it, the did not because they feared doing so would prevent ratification.

Just because something is or is not constitutional, it doesn't mean that it is or isn't right. Slavery was no doubt an evil and pernicious institution and the founders' failure to abolish it is one of the few black marks on the Constitutional Convention. However, because the founders understood that no man-made document is perfect and that time and circumstance may require changes to the Constitution, they built in the Amendment process in order to address such issues as need arises.

If they once ruled something to be constitutional and decades later reverse -- what does that say about the Constitution? Does that mean the the act was constitutional for the time up to the first ruling, and for eighty years thereafter, but suddenly became unconstitutional as a result of a newer ruling?

For all practical purposes, yes that's exactly what it means. When SCOTUS makes a ruling on a particular issue, that ruling becomes the authoritative word on the matter unless/until either SCOTUS reverses the ruling or the Constitution is amended. As an example, racial segregation was technically constitutional and perfectly legal, though wrong and immoral, before and after Plessy v. Ferguson until that decision was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education.

I understand that the SCOTUS gets to tell us which laws they think are constitutional, but that doesn't mean the nine black robes (or a subset of five of them) are always perfect and infallible. Mr. Justice Scalia certainly wrote that some regulation is allowed under the 2nd Amendment -- but where in the language did he find that? The Founders knew the word "reasonable," and they actually used it in the 4th Amendment when prohibiting "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Do you see "reasonable" or "unreasonable" anywhere in the language of the 2nd Amendment? I don't. The 2nd Amendment IS an absolute prohibition against ALL government regulation of arms held by the citizenry.

No, SCOTUS is not infallible and there have been some very poor rulings throughout U.S. History (as far as 2A is concerned, I personally think United States v. Miller was disgraceful given the historical events surrounding it). However, there is indeed a way, albeit a very difficult one, to override SCOTUS should they make a bad decision: the Amendment Process.

No matter how clear you, I, or anyone else believes the language of the Constitution to be, the founders knew that it would be read different ways and debated, that's why we have the Judicial Branch of out government to begin with. After all, if the language of the constitution were as cut and dry to everyone as it appears to you, we would have no need for SCOTUS to interpret it.

As to a limited versus unlimited right, it is commonly understood, and has long been the position of SCOTUS, that one person's rights end when they begin to infringe upon those of another. For example, while the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, or petition of the government, certain expressions of those rights would infringe upon the rights of others and, as such, may be regulated or prohibited. While I have the freedom to practice a religion of my choice, I do not have the right to harm other people in the name of my religion.

Likewise, while I have the right to keep and bear arms, I do not have the right to do so in a manner that needlessly endangers other people. For example, I have the right to own a handgun, but I do not have the right to own an unstable chemical weapon. That is, of course, an extreme example and most of the debate over what restriction is constitutional and what is not is not so clear cut. Some would say that the carrying of a concealed handgun constitutes a needless endangerment to the rest of the population and, as such, stringent regulation or outright ban of machine guns passes constitutional muster. Others, myself included, would disagree and feel that the carrying of a concealed handgun by law-abiding individuals represents little or no threat to public safety and, as such, stringent regulation or outright prohibition of said practice is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of that very argument are equally convinced that their position is the correct one and neither side is able to change the other's mind, hence it becomes necessary for the Judicial Branch of the government to step in, interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law(s) in question, and settle the debate.