What does the Scalia versus Posner fight mean to the 2A?

I believe Posner is incorrect in his interpretation of the 2nd, and I submit the following. Suppose there was also an amendment that read, "A well informed Congress being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to read books shall not be infringed." Would you interpret that to mean that only Congress members have the right to read books?

This is not an original thought of mine, but I read it several years ago and cannot attribute credit to the unknown author.
 
Aquila Blanca said:
I can read in the statutes at the time I am performing an action.
Click to expand...

I think that horse left the barn decades, maybe centuries, ago. Every Noob that comes on the forum an thinks they can do something because the law says so is told that what really matters is case law not written law. I don't have any confidence that I can EVER know my actions are legal just because I read the statute. I wish I could, but I can't.

I agree with you in principle but the practical application is long gone.

I believe that written word should be interpreted in a historical, grammatical, literal way but that hasn't been done in generations.
 
Brian, the complexity and opacity you describe do a lot to erode the sense that we have a system of law.

Very often people don't have any sense that they are governed by actual rules, but who was able to get the services of the better priest-of-the-law to utter magic words for his benefit. Sadly, many areas of law are so complex that even attorneys carry this sense.

I regret this condition because it erodes the sense that law is a rule we can reasonably understand in common and to which we can conform our conduct. It makes us cynical and ultimately undermines the force and purpose of law itself. My two cents.
 
peetzakillah said:
I think that horse left the barn decades, maybe centuries, ago. Every Noob that comes on the forum an thinks they can do something because the law says so is told that what really matters is case law not written law. I don't have any confidence that I can EVER know my actions are legal just because I read the statute. I wish I could, but I can't.

I agree with you in principle but the practical application is long gone.
Click to expand...
I understand that. My point was that anyone who espouses strict "textualism" is ipso facto espousing interpreting laws to say what they say, not what they might have meant when written and not what the legislature might have thought they were writing ... but didn't.
 
Well, my sorry depressed self agrees with both Aquila Blanca and "peetzakillah" (Mr. Pfleuger).

That's a damned shame for this republic.

And KyJim's trepidation is well placed. May the Hon. Richard Posner collect his gold watch and enjoy a long happy retirement.
 
I listened to the orals in Moore again and I think I was too hard on Judge Williams.

She made some cogent points in questioning Karl Triebel.

Although she seems to be coming down very hard on may issue and only if a person shows good cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top