Quote:
Well... semantics, syntax, and viewpoint, in the case of the 2nd Amendment: if the syntax were clearer, the semantics would take care of themselves. But that's why interpretation is necessary -- it's those darn commas, and deciding what counts as a subordinate clause.
Call me a deconstructionist or worse, if you will, but I find the notion that there's some sort of "plain meaning" of language that exists on some level other than how humans interpret it (which may vary) sort of naive...
|
The concepts and ideas behind the writing of the Constitution are relatively easy to find. It's these basic concepts that for most Constitutional scholars are easy to find, and, are the reason for many justices using a 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution. It's a fairly long document, concerned with one man's nature, once given power, to misuse that power, destroying what gave them that power in the first place, and causing suffering and misery.
These were also very smart men, that could anticipate that things would develop that they might not be ready for. However, the primary ideals of freedom they knew must be present for the society to flourish.
Having British soldiers running around, moving into their houses for months at a time, eating their food, etc. certainly is little different from the threat of home invasion, and the recognition of the need for firearms to be secure in your own home.
They attempted to limit the Federal government, but, that created serious problems as well, since raising an army was difficult, and paying for it even harder.
They also understood the concept that government bureaucracy is unlikely to flourish if there is no money to pay people, and, that was clearly their intent.
We are now on a path, or already really have, an oligarchy we elect. Even the state congress' are reasserting their right to govern their states, for fear of Obama and the current congress. We are clearly going down a path to socialism, or socialized government practices. That is not the direction the founders designed the Constitution to go in.
I believe there are a LOT of folks out there that are concerned about these issues, and, they are voting with gun and ammunition dollars, right now.
The Supreme Court has in the past been a rock in the path to socialism. It has also done incredible things to help get to that point. There is a split on the court, one side going for government being the solution to everything, and, that the Constitution is a 'living' document, to be changed as everything changes.
The strict constructionist view is that the limitations on the Federal Government MUST be upheld, or, the system of government we have is not going to be the one the founders designed, and, that has worked for a couple hundred years.
One of the other great fears is the benevolent dictator, similar to Pericles. A sophist that will say anything to gain power, and, then do anything to keep it. FDR was very close to that, a country that was in desperate straight relied on this man on the radio to guide them. There are different views on how well he did that, but, one is very clear, he erroded the limitations on the Federal government tremendously, and, created bureaucracy
at a new, self-serving level, and, the war is what saved us.
The founders understood the threat of such a person, and, designed a system to stifle this sort of person.