Posted by Godefroi on June 26, 2008
Coming on heels of the ridiculous decision yesterday in Kennedy vs. Louisiana (not to mention the disaster of Boumediene), today we got a Victory for the Constitution (as written) and individual American citizens.
In their ruling on DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, the SCOTUS determined (finally) that the Framers of the Constitution did, indeed, intend that Americans have the right INDIVIDUALLY to keep and bear arms.
In his dissent, Justice Stevens wrote that:
the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.” [H/T American Thinker]
However, a person of his intelligence should be able to READ. The 2nd Amendment states “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Whenever the Constitution, and the Framers’ writings, refer to a “right of the people”, they invariably describe rights held individually. Additionally, the last four words provide the evidence Justice Stevens says is lacking: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia wrote:
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Our Constitution was devised by men too familiar with tyranny to allow the Federal government to usurp powers over the People and States which were not expressly granted. That was the whole point.
For the record, here’s how the decision went:
- Dissenting: Stevens, Souder, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer
- Majority: Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Note that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were the dissenters in Kennedy.
Also note that McCain has vowed to nominate (conservative, constructionist-leaning) Justices like Roberts and Alito – whom he helped confirm.
Obama, OTOH, would nominate someone with “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. ”, and with the outlook that “it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout. . . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court…people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them…[2 , 3]”
Hey, Obaman – Harvard LAW grad, and former instructor on Constitutional (of all things) LAW – what about a strong grasp of LAW? Since when is Law about FEELINGS? YES, JUDGE, I DID RAPE THAT CHILD, BUT I FEEL REALLY BAD ABOUT IT…WHERE’S YOUR EMPATHY FOR MY SITUATION?