It's the job of the courts to be "picking about the words" not only of the amendments to the federal constitution but to all the laws—national, state, and local. How else are the meanings of the enactments to be known?
The Second Amendment says way more than the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And, at least until now, the Supreme Court has interpreted every amendment, including the first, in the context of its entirety.
To adopt another rationale for interpretation—to pick out words and phrases that suit the fashions and fads of the moment, and ignore the other words and phrases it contains, would, shall we say, be problematic.
For example, people who despise the federal government—the Idaho crazies among them—might prefer to ignore all but the first five words of the First Amendment.
It would read then: "Congress shall make no law."
To think that the Second Amendment is limited to the words about keeping and bearing arms, is to think something that wasn't for the first two hundred years of the republic.
It is a sad commentary on the responsibility of the Bush Court to realize it is willing to consider construing the Bill of Rights to suit the gun nuts, survivalists, and their ilks.
It's the job of the courts to be "picking about the words" not only of the amendments to the federal constitution but to all the laws—national, state, and local. How else are the meanings of the enactments to be known?
The Second Amendment says way more than the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And, at least until now, the Supreme Court has interpreted every amendment, including the first, in the context of its entirety.
To adopt another rationale for interpretation—to pick out words and phrases that suit the fashions and fads of the moment, and ignore the other words and phrases it contains, would, shall we say, be problematic.
For example, people who despise the federal government—the Idaho crazies among them—might prefer to ignore all but the first five words of the First Amendment.
It would read then: "Congress shall make no law."
To think that the Second Amendment is limited to the words about keeping and bearing arms, is to think something that wasn't for the first two hundred years of the republic.
It is a sad commentary on the responsibility of the Bush Court to realize it is willing to consider construing the Bill of Rights to suit the gun nuts, survivalists, and their ilks.