Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse......

[Jagger]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious right wing judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used. However, the first thing he does is follow an obscure legal treatise, written seventy five years after the Second Amendment was ratified, which he believes allows him to "rephrase" the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.... The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867);

Who can tell the class why the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding nation?

[Postman]

Jagger,

Apparently the Bill of Rights are not honored at WLD, so expect the same distain would be afford the Supreme Court.

[Jagger]

If the lawmakers' will was for the American people to have a clear unambiguous right to keep and bear arms, why did they make an Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, knowing full well that there was a well established common law rule of construction, which dictated, that in such a case, the means (the right of the people) should be sacrificed to the end (a well regulated militia)?