Projecttahoe.org



Interpreting the 2nd Amendment. Since the day the Constitution was written, it has been hotly contested as to the interpretation of the words. The framers made many compromises when creating the Constitution, and in doing so left many words, phrases, and sections unclear as to what exactly was meant by them. The amendments, especially, have come under fire as to how they should be interpreted, and maybe no other amendment has been contested more, and interpreted differently then the 2nd Amendment. It has caused people to argue, and even make strange political alignments. These political alignments have in turn caused the deliberation between whether the 2nd amendment is a state’s right or an individual’s right. Groups, such as the ACLU, have always been in the forefront of protecting people from the government, but they have taken a strong stance in stating that the 2nd amendment is a state’s right to keep a militia. George Washington was once quoted saying, "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained." To break down and further look at how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted, we must first look at how the Constitution itself is interpreted. For this we will look at two distinct philosophies of interpretation. First there is the textulaist who interprets the Constitution by reading its words and phrases and determining their meanings. A textualist also takes each of the phrases separate from the other ones. They believe that the Constitution can and will evolve. The second type of person is originalist. The originalist argues that the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments were fixed at the moment of the adoption. 2 So the meaning of the constitution is static rather than evolving. Using these two viewpoints will help in understanding the different ways that the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted. The 2nd Amendment in the plain language of the Constitution says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Textualists like Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor have deemed that the 2nd Amendment does not mean the same thing that it meant when it was written. She ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to states. In the case of Maloney v. Cuomo that upheld New York's complete ban on the possession of a chukka stick (or nunchuks). James Maloney had been arrested at his home in 2000 for possessing the weapon. He argued that his 2nd Amendment rights were violated by the state of New York, because he had arms in his home (the nunchukas) for the protection of his family. This decision, by Sotomayor, ignored Maloney’s claims that he was protected by the Second Amendment. Sotomayor said that the "statute neither interferes with a fundamental right nor singles out a suspect classification." They held that a state legislature has the right to pass a complete ban on weapons in the home, because the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. This is an example of a textualist. Even though the Constitution specifically says “the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed on” the judge considered that the nunchuckas did not fall under this classification. When a Textualist, like Justice Sotomayor, interprets the constitution they may deem it necessary that the Constitution needs to be adapted to fit a more current time, and may think the Constitution is a guiding map and not a series of words that are set in stone. The “Founding Fathers” could never have envisioned the weapons that our country would one day try and protect. Our country has come a long way from muskets to AK-47s. An Originalist, on the other hand, is going to interpret the Constitution by trying to discover its original meaning or intent and not try to give it any form of a foreign meaning. They are going to try and discover exactly what was meant at the time that it was written. A good example of a Supreme Court Justice, who was also an Originalist, is Oliver Wendall Holmes. Holmes said that interpreting a law the way it was written was not about getting into the man’s mind who wrote it, but the issue was, "not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used."In the case of McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Samuel A. Alito ruled the exact opposite of Justice Sotomayor, and said "We hold that the 2nd Amendment right is fully applicable to the states.” Speaking from the 5-4 majority opinion. He said that the 2nd Amendment reinforced by the 14th gives Americans the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. This is exemplifies the view of an originalist. Many of our founding fathers had this same view and felt that freedom and arms were inextricably linked. As of now most states still allow the common citizen to own and conceal weapons. Court cases have affected and limited the types of weapons one may own, but to this point the 2nd amendment is still left to the discretion of the state. As long as we have such differing views of gun ownership, heated debate will exist. Bibliography1. Letter from George Washington to the President of Congress (Sept. 1787 in 1 Documentary History the President of the Ratification of the Constitution 305 (John P. Kaminski et al. eds., 1983) 2. Davis,Sue. Corwin and Peltason's Understanding the Constitution. 17 ed. Caroline Acheson. Belmont: THOMAS HIGHER EDUCATION, 2008.3. The United States Constitution, II Amendment4. Darlings, Brian. "Sotomayor Has Big 2nd Amendment Problems.Human Events,". 65. 20 (2009), . O.W. Holmes, COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS, ISBN 0-8446-1241-3, p.2046. Coia, David A. "Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment." Human Events 66, no. 24 (2010): 1 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download