In a 1997 book, "A Matter of Interpretation," Justice Scalia wrote that he viewed "the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms."I'm afraid William Rawle had a different view...and he was in a position to know...
Yet, this next passage gives court watchers some pause. "Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."[More]
Leave it to a charlatan to represent clear meaning as being subjective.
Professor Quigley? Your cue...
5 comments:
Amazing, how a man of such learning and knowledge, doesn't know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.
Your reference to William Rawles is well taken.
I have long maintained that the states intentionally misinterpreted the Second Amendment as only applying to the US government and not to the state governments so that they could selectively disarm anyone they wished.
The contrast between the wording of the First Amendment, which specifically list Congress as the institution to which the First applies, to the Second Amendment which broadly states that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed, should have been seen as applying to any and all governments, not just the US governemnt.
I don't like to grant power to the already overreaching US government, but because there are various states that now insist on restricting self defense rights access by millions, we may have to do so, no matter the distastefulness of it.
William Rawle on secession.
West Point Instruction Taught Lee That Secession Was Legal
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=1562&highlight=rawle
The great early American constitutional scholar William Rawle said a state had the right to secede. Rawle was a contemporary of founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and was appointed by George Washington as the first U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania.
*Rawle’s book, “A View of the Constitution of the United States”
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm
was used as a legal textbook at a number of universities, including West Point, Dartmouth, and Harvard. To this day, scholars who debate legal issues relating to the First and Second Amendments refer to Rawle’s work.
On the issue of secession, Rawle said,
“It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. . .”
(A View of the Constitution of the United States*, 2nd Edition, 1829, Vol. 4, p. 571)
(*Robert E. Lee told Bishop Wilmer, of Louisiana, that if it had not been for the instruction received from Rawle’s text-book at West Point he would not have left the United States Army and joined the Confederate Army at the breaking out of the War.)
What he wrote was true in 1997. The Bill of Rights was not intended at the time of its writing to apply to the states, only to the federal government. The only reason any of the rights in the Bill of Rights were to be enforced against the states in 1997 was that the 14th Amendment had been passed with the intention of "incorporating" the "privileges or immunities" of American citizens as against the states. Earlier courts had spent 60 years or so making decisions making more or less openly wrong decisions to keep the 14th from taking effect, followed by about 60 years of using it to incorporate rights piecemeal . . . and by 1997, the Second Amendment had not been incorporated as of yet. And if you were following gun rights issues at the time, you know that many people felt that any Supreme Court case on the subject was capable of touching off a civil war--and that most people were sure there were not the votes on the court to affirm the right to keep and bear arms, much less to incorporate it against the states.
That was then, and this is now. The fact that you and I (and likely he) didn't like what he wrote in 1997 does not change the fact that it was true. The catch the reporter in that story is hoping everyone will ignore is that while Scalia's 1997 statement was true, Scalia now likely has the power to change that fact. They're implying that because he observed the fact in 1997, he should vote not to change the fact in 2010 . . . which makes no sense.
Don, what do you know that William Rawle did not when he wrote this in 1829:
"“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” "
Post a Comment