Thomas Sowell: Supreme Court prime example of lawlessness

Naples Daily News ^ | 12/25/03 | Thomas Sowell

[snopercod]

I checked out their website. Statesville is about a 3 hour drive for me. Sigh...

[mrsmith]

"The language of the Second Amendment is not restricted in its scope"

True, but the understanding the authors and ratifiers had of the Constitution must be respected if we are not to have a "living constitution".
Their understanding that it did not apply to the states is not counter to the language.

John Marshall led the Supreme Court in the 1833 Barron deicision that explicitly stated that none of the BOR applied, or was intended to apply, to the states. That is in line with his statement to the Anti-federalists in 1788 at the Virginia Ratification Cconvention that " All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article."

The anti-federalists would just never have accepted a Bill of Rights that increased the power of the new constitution's central government at all.

George Mason (at the Va. Ratification Convention): "If ever they attempt to harass and abuse the militia, they may abolish them, and raise a standing army in their stead. There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army.
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless — by disarming them. "

The anti-federalists' concerns over the new government's powers over the militia was addressed by reserving an individual right instead of a state right. (Thank you Mr Mason!)