Replies

Thomas’s colleagues, like many legal scholars, were evidently unwilling to join him in overturning the Slaughterhouse cases and based their decisions on the privileges and immunities clause, presumably because that might undercut other precedents.

But Thomas, in my view, has the better logical argument. “The notion,” he writes, “that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.”

As he points out, the Court has used the due-process clause to find rights — notably the right to an abortion — that are not specified in the Constitution, while at the same time four current justices have also used it to argue that a right specified in the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Thomas’s concurring opinion points the way to a more principled jurisprudence, based more clearly on the text of the Constitution, while at the same time making the strongest of possible cases that Second Amendment rights are fundamental.

Barone nailed it. The Second Amendment is quite explicit, totally unlike Roe, Lawrence, Griswold, etc. made of whole cloth under the rubric of "due process."

Opinion of Thomas, J. J. means Justice. It's an excellent read.

I fully concur with Justice Thomas.

We are truly blessed that this man withstood the insidious assault on his character and integrity by a charlatan of the Left.

The plain wording of the second amendment, which was drafted to limit the federal government, acknowledges "the right of the people"...

and hence by itself, makes the broader claim to protections. And in view of the general principles of the Declaration and Constitution, that our rights come from God, and thence, the People are sovereign, and only delegate to government limited authority, hence any 'rights' already acknowledged, therefore...cannot be arbitrarily revoked by any government...Federal...or State.

The 2nd Amendment is, and arguably always has been, hence, a declaration of universal right. Trumping the 'limitation' to mere Federal intrusions on our rights. And historically, that appears consistent with the Founders intent.

Do you remember the Thomas hearings where he was dragged through the mud by his intellectual inferiors? Contrast that to the cake wake of the current hearings for the commie lesbian midget...not that I have anything against lesbian midgets really...or midgets...or just lesbians. Ok I'll fess us...it's the commie part of commie lesbian midget that I am strongly opposed too.

As I posted on the other thread on this topic:

". . . Thomas, in my view, has the better logical argument. 'The notion,' he writes, 'that a constitutional provision that guarantees only 'process' before a person is deprived of life, liberty or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.'"

Thomas, here, reveals the kind of analysis and approach Jefferson recommended when he made the following statement on Constitutional interpretation:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invdnted against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson 1823

Then, there is Justice Hugo Black's statement in 1968:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' view of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."

The sad thing is that the current President is not learned enough, nor of a mind, to recognize the brilliance of Justice Thomas, nor of his fidelity to the Founders' Constitution.