With Justice Barrett's confirmation to SCOTUS we are much safer from liberal interpretations of the constitution going forward. As I'm sure you already know by now, Barrett has made her career as a so called constitutional "originalist" meaning that she does not try to change the original meaning using the argument that, "yeah they said that back then but you have to understand the context. And using the context, we can interpret their words to mean (put whatever liberal bullshit you want here)". One big example of constitutional gamesmanship by liberals is on the 2nd amendment. Instead of just reading it like it is, they say, "well, nobody had an AR15 back then. They had muskets. So it's OK to have muskets but not AR15s. The founders could never have anticipated that technology would put so much power in to the hands of a citizen".
In truth, the founders wanted the people to be armed well enough that we could, if needed overthrow an out of control government. That's what they wanted! They wanted us to have the option to do this. It says so in some of the sweetest, most powerful words ever penned by man:
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The founders knew through direct experience that asking a bully nicely to fuck off didn't work. Bullies have to be taken down hard though the use of physical force. If they have heavy weapons and the people do not, how can the people ever be expected to exercise their right and perform their duty "to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security."? THAT is why the bill of rights says in such an open ended fashion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.". ANY limitation here is an infringement. If I want to maintain a battle tank then that right should be constitutionally protected. Yes, I may go crazy and use it to commit crimes. In fact it happened out in California some decades ago that someone stole a national guard tank and went on a rampage. Yes, it sucked. He did a lot of property damage before being taken down. But I'm a Hell of a lot more fearful of being enslaved by corrupt deep state communist government than I am about someone running over cars with a tank. Freedom isn't free. There is a cost to it which is measured in protesters being shot in the head, chest and arm, and of course in flattened cars. But that's like crying about the cost of insurance and forgetting that hurricanes, tornadoes and floods routinely take everything that people have. Nobody who was insured in the aftermath of Dorian in the Bahamas was crying about their insurance premium. I wish freedom were free but it isn't and that is the message that foolish gun hating leftists liberals need to get through their brains.
With Justice Barrett I don't think we need to worry about creative interpretations of the constitution and I for one will sleep a bit better at night knowing this
"I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time. And it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."
--Amy Coney Barrett
No comments:
Post a Comment