[lbo-talk] 2d Amendment/Rule of Law (Was: The curse of literacy)

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Mon Jul 19 08:12:49 PDT 2004


Justin wrote:
>I don't know from the legislative history. But when it
>comes to law, if the text is clear, I'm sort of a
>textualist. Meaning that the law is what the text of
>the law says. The legislative history is not law.
>It's not even commentray. Here the text is pretty
>clear. If the Framers meant to support the individual
rights interpretation, they shoulda said so.

But of course "they" did, in the most unequivocal terms. The very first phrase of the Constitution--"*We* the people"-- defines "people" as a plural, not a collective, noun. Although the "Framers" of the Bill of Rights were not the original Philadelphia writers of the text but the popular masses who insisted on inclusion of those guarantees of their rights, this makes no difference. The Constitution would never have been ratified if the people even suspected that it gave them not individual but governmentally defined "collective" rights, nor that their right to keep and bear their firearms would disappear in favor of their "right" to enlist in a governmentally regimented military force.

Shane Mage

"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly.

When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. Weiner)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list