3 ms·
The government cannot demand anything. The well-regulated part is a justification clause. Imagine if the 2A said this: > "A well tailored suit, being necessary
by splintercell 6y ago
The government cannot demand anything. The well-regulated part is a justification clause.
Imagine if the 2A said this:
> "A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharply dressed citizenry, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed."
Does this mean that the government now has a right to force dress codes on people so that their suits are well tailored?
Also justification clauses have been used in other contemporary laws too:
> Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences.
(From NH Ex Post Facto Article)
Does this mean that ONLY when the ex-post facto laws are injurious, oppressive and unjust, should that law be unconstitutional according to the NH constitution?
- dane-pgp 6y agoGreat points, thank you, but I think I still disagree. In the absence of the 2A, the government would have the power to ban any weapon (using the same authority they have to ban weapons that are not covered by the 2A today). By contrast, under your proposed fictional constitution, there would be no underlying basis for the government to control clothing generally, so your 2A wouldn't expand or limit the sorts of clothing allowable. As for your second point, I interpret the "justification clause" as saying that all retrospective laws are ...unjust, and that "No such laws" means "No retrospective laws". The hypothetical of a ...just ex-post facto law is ruled out by definition.