2nd Amendment, set in stone?
Reflecting on an ever changing world during a discussion on the Second Amendment Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recently stated that it was the values that our forefathers wished us to follow when they wrote and signed our Constitution those many years ago rather than the words themselves. Of the Bill of Rights he said, “It’s not a matter of policy, it’s a matter of what those Framers’ intended.” He couldn’t be more wrong.
If the Constitution was intended to reflect values that an ever changing world should adhere to then it would have listed values. It didn’t. It authorized or prohibited things. The words were not just thrown together, but carefully crafted to express intent, not feelings and attitudes. No other “Law” but the letter of the law, otherwise there IS NO LAW. If you break the law with the best of intentions you still break the law.
When the supreme law of the land is deemed flexible and subject to be interpreted by “values” as seen through the eyes of whoever is “in charge” at any given time then we are no better off than if we had a King running our country, or a collective dictatorship made up of political appointees with lifelong tenure.
The words found in our Constitution were chosen and debated as if they were to be chiseled in stone, and the Bill of Rights were a guarantee that things would be as they were said to be, otherwise many of the signers of our constitution would not have done so. That these words mean what they say is the foundation stone of the existence of our country. Nothing was left to be “interpreted”. Our forefathers wouldn’t have stood for it.
Many gave their lives or fortunes to give a solid and profound meaning to that Constitution. To waiver away from that is an affront to those which we owe everything.