0

Letter - Dissenting judges attempted to amend Constitution

To the editor:

The recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution should be an eye opener to the political corruptness that abounds in the Congress and the court itself. It is frightening to recognize that four socialist-leaning liberal members of that supposed grand, noble, august body opposed upholding the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend, this by a 5-4 margin.

I can only think of three reasons for not supporting the ruling: illiteracy, ignorance, or a devious attempt to re-write the Constitution. All being lawyers by profession, one must assume they can read and write. Ignorance? Interpreting, not amending, is their intended role in government. Amending can only be done by consent of the people, through their representatives in Congress. It seems to me that those who opposed the ruling have betrayed a trust in their integrity. With respect to the 2nd Amendment, I believe certain prominent members of Congress and mainstream media would also fall into this category.

The first 10 amendments, "The Bill of Rights," is a list of things intended to protect us from government, a freedom not enjoyed by people of many nations around the world. All 27 (except the 10th) contain the words shall, or shall not. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is so clear that only those who refuse to see, or those with evil intent, can misunderstand it. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed." Infringed means it cannot be altered except as specified in Article V. Since Article V outlines the process of amending, why do some want to bypass that requirement with the argument the amendment only pertains to a militia? This quote from one of the founders (paraphrasing) "A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms - to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike - how to use them," Richard Henry Lee.

The term "the right of the people" is found in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Which person, or group of persons, has the right of freedom of speech? Which group has the right to be secure in their houses, papers and effects? Only those who refuse to see or those with evil intent would argue that the 2nd Amendment does not mean each individual.

Some other comments by the founders: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," Thomas Jefferson. "The Constitution shall never be construed - to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," Samuel Adams. Clearly, this right is for "peaceable citizens." Felons, those who would force their will upon another with the use of a gun, forfeit that right.

It is worth noting that two of the dissenting judges, Breyer and Ginsberg, were appointed by President Bill Clinton. It is likely that the next president will appoint at least one new member to the court, something one might consider in the upcoming election in November.

Grady L. Mullins

Conyers