Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Where do you stand on banning guns? [View all]TPaine7
(4,286 posts)In the case of the Second Amendment and many other laws of the time, the purpose clause was given to communicate the purpose of the enactment. That is the same reason for the first clause in the paragraph in the will. It is also the reason for the Preamble to the Constituition.
However, it would be illegitimate for the president to claim that the Preamble's "provide for the common defense" snippet overrode the clear directive that he can serve no more than two terms, and that in order for the nation to have clear and consistent leadership through these trying times, he must continue as Commander in Chieffor the common defense. That would (hopefully) get laughed out of courtthe preamble cannot override a clear directive in the body.
The purpose clause of the Second Amendment sounds strange to us today, but we still have something similiar (and I would argue much more superfluous). Here's a made up example of how some laws still read:
1) All restaraunts in the state of Nevada having greater than 2,500 sf of dining area shall provide no fewer than three (3) private booths suitable for mothers to breasfeed their children...
Why would the legislature take the time to inform us that the state of Nevada is great? I guess because it sounds good. But it is not enforceable in court. It is very clear where the enforceable part begins.
The bottom line: the signers wanted to tell us why they were enacting the Second Amendment, it was customary in those days, and we have analogous clauses even today, though we word them differently.
Edited to add:
As to what the Supreme Court could do, the Court is reluctant to reverse itself, perversely so IMO. For example, the Court in MacDonald did not reverse the lower court on the right groundsthe priviledges or immunities clause. Scalia addmitted that they were wrong as a matter of history and logic, but that they would do the right thing with the wrong rationale rather than revisit settled law and upset the legal apple cart.
However, the sooner the opportunity arises to overturn Heller and MacDonald, the more likely it is that it will not be regarded as "settled law", no matter what platitudes the Justices spout in order to get through confirmation. The bottom line is, the Court can do anything they think they can get away with, including transparent lying and making up their own facts so as to support an abomination.
That's what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Roger Taney did (with the backing of a 7-2 majority) to support slavery, as I write about here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176226#176809 . That started the Civil War, after which the Fourteenth Amendment was written, in part to allow individual citizens, including blacks, to carry guns. The language that did it, the "priviledges and imunities" clause, was purposefully nulified by the Court, and the Court still, while overturning the wrong, insists on maintaining its pretend infallibility by not restoring the proper interpretation of the original language with its original intent.
Clear as mud?
I don't mind answering these questions, and I don't think you're being argumentative in the least.