4 ms·
Meaning what? The SCOTUS has ruled several times that the individual right to bear arms is separate from the "militia" statement and both are covered in the 2A.
by sigzero 7y ago
Meaning what? The SCOTUS has ruled several times that the individual right to bear arms is separate from the "militia" statement and both are covered in the 2A.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoWhy is the phrase "well-regulated militia" in there then? Is it just fluff that can be ignored?
- ryeights 7y agoWell, you can read the Supreme Court opinion to find out exactly why: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi... In short, the clause is there as a justification/motivation, and not a precondition, for the right to bear arms.
- Pinckney 7y agoIs pornography uncopyrightable because it's not a "science or useful art"? (I.8.8)
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI don't think that compares.
- jdkee 7y agoNo. You are confusing patent law with copyright law. And first amendment law with copyright.
- rayiner 7y agoEugene Volokh has done a pretty thorough study of this: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm > The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has a justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor Volokh points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured. Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted. In particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often -- and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their stated justifications.
- Turing_Machine 7y agoryeights gave a cite below, but consider this: If the First Amendment had been written as "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you would argue, what, exactly? That only the legislature had the right to books? That only "well-educated" people had the right to books? No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a tortured interpretation of the language.
- yongjik 7y agoThis is a really weird argument, considering that the First Amendment is emphatically not written as such, and that's what this debate is about: maybe there's a reason why such a phrase appears in 2A but not in 1A, or maybe there's none, but you're begging the question.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoIf the first amendment was written that way I think we shouldn't just ignore the phrase "well-educated". Otherwise you can choose to ignore other sections too. Either all words have meaning or they don't. You can't pick and choose.