US Constitutional Interpretation

Post Reply New Topic

Many commentators agree. But, I don't see any reinterpretive action by the Court which determined that, since the Constitution was written, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has generally meant that they may keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons in general use by military and police) at any place which isn't a "secure area" or private property where the owner prohibits it.

Any reinterpretation came from those governments (District of Columbia and Chicago) which prohibited the mere possession of arms unconstitutionally.

As for amending the Constitution, I support wholeheartedly for those who want to reinterpret it to follow its own conditions to change it. The high standard of amending it (acceptance by two-thirds of the members of the Congress or constitutional convention, and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures) shows that the Founders didn't mean for any provision to be reinterpreted on a whim. It is difficult for a reason. It is a firewall against abuse.

Valid point. Maybe the Second Amendment is a thing of the past.


Nothing at the moment as far as I know.

I'm sure they meant for their words to be unambiguous. However, that isn't possible with the English language. Words also have different meanings based on the existing culture. Also, new situations arise all the time which are a challenge to existing rules. It can't NOT be interpreted for modern times.

What do you think of the U.S. Constitution's brevity?

You kind of contradict yourself there.......

Original words can, indeed, have new and different meanings, but generations of U.S. Supreme Court justices have striven to preserve the original meanings of the words in their opinions as evidenced by Heller and McDonald. It is surprising how often the Court and its subsidiary courts reference Noah Webster's earliest definitions of the American English language. So, it appears that the justices and their associates actually do care a lot about the meanings of words as used in the common language of 18th and early 19th century America.

And even if you understand the words and their meanings, that doesn't mean we can accurately interpret the meaning of the entire sentence or paragraph. The Constitution was the result of many compromises, so even referring to what the founders thought they meant doesn't always generate a clear answer.

True. That is why, in the case of reviewing and incorporating the Second Amendment, the Court justices researched the "genealogy" of the amendment from the Magna Carta to the time of its adoption as part of the Bill of Rights. Their research showed that, in every instance over more than 500 years, the meanings remained the same (that the right to defend oneself through the ownership and use of a weapon was always determined by free nations to be a natural and individual right). The meanings from 1215 to 1789 hadn't changed, and the Court justices of Heller and McDonald reaffirmed them. I know that this topic isn't focused on only the Second Amendment, but, since it is the most recent and one of the last parts of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated to the states, the way that the Court reaffirmed its meaning is a good example of how most justices and their associates care about retaining original intent.

So you see, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court decides it is, that's our system.

Yes, but I can't see them making a ruling that is very far off from what is traditionally held and accepted by John Q. Taxpayer, lest the justices or the ones who put them in the SC be taken to task.