Rugoz wrote:Only members of a well-regulated militia have the right to carry guns. And if there's any doubt about the particular interpretation, it's up to politics to decide things, not to the SCOTUS.
So you’re saying that it isn’t the job of SCOTUS to step in when Congress oversteps its Constitutionally limited authority?
As for the 2nd Amendment, “well-regulated” means “properly
regulated” which means Congress can’t use the authority to regulate state militias granted to it by the Constitution to disarm them—and the General Militia encompasses all males of military age that are or wish to be US citizens (with some exceptions) plus everyone in the Reserves of either sex, the Special Militia is the National Guard, and none of them can be disarmed by Congress. And that doesn’t take into account the situation on the ground at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified and what that means for Incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the state governments.
The same goes for abortion.
So point to where in the Constitution the government is prevented from regulating abortion, without
referencing “emanations” or “penumbras” (fancy words for “we can’t find what we want in the Constitution, so we’re reading it in anyway”).
True, but it will never get reformed if both sides just interpret it the way they want. Constitutionalism itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Absolutely. The central premise of Originalism is that constitutions and the laws based on them have a meaning independent of whatever judges would like them to mean, and it is the job of judges to suss out what that meaning is rather than impose their own.
We are divorced, North from South, because we have hated each other so.
—Mary Chesnut, 1861
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.