Since our Constitution is a deeply flawed document, we shouldn't support anyone who plans to interpet it literally.
Should you support Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court? Your answer should turn on one question: How much do you respect the U.S. Constitution? If you answer “a lot”, then, Conservative or Liberal, Alito is your man. If you answer “a bit”, then call your senator and demand someone else.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
>>I agree that if Congress abided by a literal interpretation of the Constitution then the States would pick up some of the slack. But the mere fact that state laws already "address" some of these issues is not sufficiently comforting. If you look at the progress that's been made in the 20th century on issues from worker protection, anti-segregation, anti-discrimination, environmental protection, and a range of other issues, what you'll find is the Federal government leading the charge. As I mentioned earlier, if the states had their way there would probably still be Jim Crow laws in the South. <<
The federal government could lead on these issues without imposing the laws itself. For example, they could withold federal funding for programs in states where certain types of laws were not enacted. That would leave the states to figure out their own solutions to those problems, but make sure they did address them.
Dave
27 - Eric Berlin
This is a great discussion and really gets down to what our constitution means and how we want the law to apply to our lives today.
I take a pragmatic view, which somewhat aligns with Mike's views. I see the constitution as a fine document (as opposed to Mike) that absolutely needs to be correctly interpreted in light of modern times. The founders never could have predicted the Internet and air travel and AK-47s and anthrax and eBooks and on and on. Technology, therefore, makes it rather silly to read that two hundred-year plus old document literally.
28 - Dave Nalle
There are a lot of people today who believe that fully automatic military weapons are EXACTLY what the founding fathers would have wanted us to have, and who believe that the need to have state of the art military arms in the hands of common citizens is as great today as it was then, because some day those of us who form the 'unorganized militia' might have to use them against the government and we should never lose that potential.
Personally I think the Swiss approach of universal conscription followed by universal possession of military arms is the way to do this responsibly while defusing criticism.
Dave
29 - Eric Berlin
There are others who believe that the second amendment applies largely to the "militia" and not to ordinary citizens, correct?
I can't believe that you would really want to infuse more guns into American society. Maybe that works in a different cultural environment, but I believe the goal should be less guns and ammo in the U.S.
30 - Dave Nalle
Except that the founding fathers clearly defined the 'militia' as all men of military age.
More guns going hand in hand with more training might not be such a bad thing.
Dave
31 - Alethinos
Again... Let's remember that the Founders assumed there would be no standing army when the Constitution was being written. They had thrown in the 3rd Amendment only because the British abuse of homeowners in the colonies had been so onerous that it was something of a kneejerk reaction. The 2nd Amendment was written, if we take a little time and put ourselves in their shoes (now, see, HERE is where Scalia SHOULD try and understand what was going on in the minds of the Founders and usually this is where he completely fails)...
There wasn't expected to be a standing army - or if there were it would be very small. Even though this was all an outcome due to the weakness of the Articles of Confederation there was still an assumption that the central government would never be TOO powerful...
Combine THIS with the fact that the formation of NEW STATES would be out on the EDGE of the new nation - and quite often literlally in the middle of INDIAN COUNTRY. Even if there were some standing army it would be widely scattered.
Thus an insistance that the people retain the right to bear arms BECAUSE militias would be needed. And indeed, even though there was a significantly more enhanced "standing" army after the Civil War, by the 1880s the army and armed forces were stripped of a descent budget for decades.
Alethinos
32 - steve
the constitution was not meant to be read subjectively. you are just angry that he was right in saying that the constitution does not provide protection for the right to have an abortion. boo f***ing hoo.
33 - Anthony Grande
Yeah, and they said that Bush was pro-Choice...
34 - Dave Nalle
I agree, Alethinos. We should disband the standing army ASAP.
Dave