[mod.politics] What does the Constitution mean?

kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (01/05/87)

----------------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1986 10:40:03 EDT
    From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
    Subject: Re: The 2nd Amendment

    Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general
    populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  This is
    demonstrably false.

    For many years, localities such as New York City have had laws
    which abridge this putative right.  Many people have been
    convicted of violating these laws.  During all this time, the
    Supreme Court has never overturned such a conviction due to
    conflict with the second amentment.  If the Court really believed
    that such a right existed, the NRA would have found a suitable
    test case decades ago.  The Court's silence speaks volumes.

    What the anti-gun-control people really mean is that *they* (not
    the Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right.
    Anyone can interpret the constitution, but only the Court's
    interpretation really counts.  By letting gun control laws stand,
    the Court has decided that a general right to keep and bear arms
    does not exist.

    -- Jim Olsen
----------------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2036 10:40:03 EDT
    From: oswald!foolwell@ll-xn.ARPA
    Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment

    Many people claim that the first amendment provides the general
    populace a constitutional right to say and write what they wish.
    This is demonstrably false.

    For many years, localities such as New Christ City have had laws
    which abridge this putative right.  Many people have been
    convicted of violating these laws.  During all this time, the
    Supreme Court has never overturned such a conviction due to
    conflict with the first amentment.  If the Court really believed
    that such a right existed, the ACLU would have found a suitable
    test case decades ago.  The Court's silence speaks volumes.

    What the anti-book-control people really mean is that *they* (not
    the Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right.
    Anyone can interpret the constitution, but only the Court's
    interpretation really counts.  By letting book control laws stand,
    the Court has decided that a general right to write whatever one
    wants does not exist.

    -- Jarry Foolwell
----------------------------------------

  'nuff said.
                                                              ...Keith

-------