Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I suppose what I would like to start with is Justice Scalia stating that there are Constitutional limitations that can be imposed on the exercise of the Second Amendment:
And then we are told that Justice Scalia is a Strict Constituionalist, basically, he Interprets the Constitution based on what is derived from the Original Intent. Okay, I can go for that:
Then he goes on to describe what appears to be, even though he is a firm believer in Original Intent, to describe how the Right To Bear Arms can be infringed:
And then we have a bit of a side-note regarding the title of his book, which is rather generally entitled. Or did he intend for it to be?:
I was under the impression that the Constitution is not Interpretive. And yet we have a die-hard Conservative Justice who Linguistically is describing the Act of placing a Law to the Constitution as Interpretation.
The link: http://news.yahoo.com/justice-scalia-steps-criticism-healthcare-ruling-201206215.html
He said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are."
And then we are told that Justice Scalia is a Strict Constituionalist, basically, he Interprets the Constitution based on what is derived from the Original Intent. Okay, I can go for that:
Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written - cited "a tort called affrighting" that existed when the Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century making it a misdemeanor to carry "a really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax."
Then he goes on to describe what appears to be, even though he is a firm believer in Original Intent, to describe how the Right To Bear Arms can be infringed:
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," he said. "I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear' (arms). So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be ... decided."
And then we have a bit of a side-note regarding the title of his book, which is rather generally entitled. Or did he intend for it to be?:
Supreme Court justices rarely give media interviews. Scalia is making the rounds to promote "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," a new book he co-wrote.
I was under the impression that the Constitution is not Interpretive. And yet we have a die-hard Conservative Justice who Linguistically is describing the Act of placing a Law to the Constitution as Interpretation.
The link: http://news.yahoo.com/justice-scalia-steps-criticism-healthcare-ruling-201206215.html
Last edited: