I call myself a "Constitutional fundamentalist". I would give constitutional documents the plain meaning of the words used, with reference to the time at which they were written. To me, that requires no long-winded "interpretation"; I think that word is code for "we're going to twist the meaning of the document to cover what we want it to do."
Because the underlying case, as well as the appeal are based solely on the Constitutions of the U.S. and Virginia, there is really only a constitutional question. That is to say, VaPlanter is asking the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, not a bunch of Constitutional fundamentalists, to "interpret" the constitutional language. It would have been easier for the Court to have limited the case to the statute that prohibits any agency of the Commonwealth from enacting such regulations. But, instead, they have to decide whether the Constitutional ban on any infringement means what it says.
Take, for example, the recent
Heller decision which everyone hailed as a big win for "gun rights". That decision only applies on territory owned and operated by the United States, so wasn't as big a "win" as might have been supposed. But more significantly, the majority opinion stated in effect that the Constitutional limitation on federal power expressed by the word, "infringe" doesn't mean what it says at all, because it is subject to "reasonable regulation".
The language under interpretation in that case is equivalent to that of Art. I, Sect. 13 of the Virginia Constitution (having been copied therefrom). So what I expect the Court to do, if they decide to grant the petition for appeal, is to decide that the language of the Virginia Constitution allows for "reasonable regulation" and to find that GMU's regulations are "reasonable".
That is to say, I expect the Virginia Supreme Court to "interpret" the Constitution in a way that infringes on the right of the People to defend themselves. And they'll do that because they are limited by the scope of VaPlanter's petition for appeal. And he's painted them into a corner.
I continue to assert that Va. Code section 15.2-915 applies to state colleges and universities. Either the university is a state agency, department, or authority, or it is not. If it is, then the statute applies; if it is not, then it lacks the power to enact the regulation in the Virginia Administrative Code.
Va. Code § 2.2-4101:
..."Agency" means any authority, instrumentality, officer, board, or other unit of the government of the Commonwealth with express or implied authority to issue regulations other than the General Assembly, courts, municipal corporations, counties, ..., and educational institutions operated by the Commonwealth with respect to regulations that pertain to (i) their academic affairs; (ii) the selection, tenure, promotion and disciplining of faculty and employees; (iii) the selection of students; and (iv) rules of conduct and disciplining of students.
...
That title, by the way, says, "Title 2.2 - ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT."; that limits the effect of the VAC to that task, administration of government. That is to say, the VAC cannot be used to create new law or define ordinances that purport to control the behavior of persons who are not carrying out governmental functions. The only "gray area" is that a governmental unit can use the VAC to define procedures that people have to comply with in order to interact with that agency. But that has to do with how many copies of which forms one has to use, and such stuff as that.
I believe that VaPlanter's heart is in the right place. He wants the Supreme Court to say that the language of the Constitution means exactly what it says. I also believe, however, that the course of litigation is best influenced by recognizing that the people making the decisions do not necessarily share one's own values and principles, and that one must choose the path the case will take by appealing to the principles of the decision makers, be they judges or jurors. And some cases are best left unfiled.
That is to say, there was a way, though litigation, of obtaining the effect that VaPlanter wants. But he didn't choose that path, preferring instead to attempt to force the courts to adopt his view of the meaning of the Constitution. I think he's on the functional equivalent of a religious mission, and that his approach is that of a romantic idealist. Well, as Otto Von Bismarck is often quoted, "Those who love the law and sausages should not observe the process by which either is made."
And as popularized in a recent movie, "It's sorta like guidelines." The law is "subject to judicial interpretation", and those who are wise limit the opportunity for judges to "interpret" the law unless they're sure of the outcome.