Quote:
|
If the meaning of the Constitution were always "plain," I know of nine ladies and gents (hint: they wear flowing black robes a lot) who'd be out of a job.
|
I know it is a grey area, but I have alwways believed that the purpose and intent of having a Supreme Court is to determine whether or not individual LAWS are in conflict with the "plain language" of the Constitution. And to settle jurisdictional disputes between the branches of govt.
I do not think that it is the proper business of the Court (any Court) to rule on what the Constitution "means". Rather it is their job to rule on whether or not a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
Obviously, in order to do that they have to understand what the Constitutions says, and the simplest standard (which is the one that should always be employed) is to take the words at plain face value, considering the intent of the Founders (as expressed in the other documents written at the time), and the language as used in that era.
Our system is, for better or worse, that any law passed is valid and legal,
until nullified by the Court. If a law has never been judged, then it is "legal", until it is ruled not to be so. Period.
However, it is also written that we do not have a duty, or moral obligation to obey unconstituional laws. And indeed, we do not. You may feel a law is unconstitutional, and disobey, that is your moral right. But, you will be subject to any and all penalties for disobeying that law, until, and unless it is ruled unconstitutional.
So, for better or worse, ALL gun laws are legal and Constitutional, until struck down. They may be distasteful. They may be clearly invalid to any reasoning individual (like the DC ban) BUT until the High Court rules, they are the law.
The mindset that the High Court is there to interpret the Constitution should not be encouraged. That is not their job. Interpreting the Constitution allows them to change it by judicial decree, and is very much at the whim and will of those individuals on the bench. This is not their job, changing the Constitution is a structured process, involving both the Federal and state legislatures, not the court.
It is all certainly a matter of semantics and viewpoint, but that's what law is, isn't it?