The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 16)

/p>

Mr. VerBruggen's article is a perfect example of why attorneys should not be allowed to interpret laws in general and the Constitution in particular.

The Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights, is probably the simplest, most clearly written set of legal instructions since the Ten Commandments. In the case of the Second Amendment, it reads "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." Only an attorney could possibly argue that the word "people" referred to anyone other than the individual citizens of the United States of America. After all, the preamble begins, "We the People..."

The Constitution is not a legislative instrument. It is not law. It is, in point of fact, the source of law in the United States. It is a compact which defines, empowers and limits the federal government of the United States. The only mistake that the Founding Fathers made, with regard to the Constitution, was that they naively relied upon the members of the three branches to limit the encroachment of the federal government into the lives of the citizens of the individual states. As we have seen, the federal government has utilized extremely suspect decisions with regard to the Constitutional authorization for most of the federal laws passed in the last two hundred years, the use of the commerce clause of the Constitution leaps to mind. So to provide the ultimate check upon the powers of the federal government, they drafted the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

p>As I said, the meaning of this Amendment is a virtual no-brainer; except to an attorney. br> -- Michael Tobias /p>

I have never been a believer in the collectivist position on the second amendment. I've never seen anyone else refer to my main objection. Maybe it is a bit too subtle for the legal mind to grasp.

It starts with historical context. Judge Posner mentions that our founders were a people who "feared standing armies." They'd lived under an army of occupation for nearly two decades, after the French & Indian war. The American Revolution was a long and bloody struggle that finally was able to remove that army and restore the people's freedom. We know, from the Federalist Papers, among other sources, that there was intense debate as to whether or not they ought to approve the new Constitution which many feared would create a dangerously strong central government.

Keeping this context in mind, we imagine the first session of the new congress. In ratifying the Constitution, several states have required a bill of rights, to help protect the people, from their government. Accordingly, the congress is working on these amendments. Does it really make sense that one of these high priority items was to ensure that weapons would be available to government forces? Has there ever been a people, at any time, in any country, who really felt it was necessary, to change their founding documents, to guarantee government weapons?

p>If your answer to these questions is "no" then the collectivist position does not pass the laugh test. If your answer is yes, then please take a look at what is going on in (the once and future Soviet) Georgia, and then reconsider your position. br> -- D. Stein /p>

topics:
Taxes, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Harry Reid, Business, Social Security, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Military, NATO, Socialism, Communism, Conservatism, Immigration, Unions