Justice Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination
One constitutional issue I've enjoyed arguing with a conservative friend is the interpretation of the second amendment. The activist Supreme Court delighted my friend and many other NRA members with its overturning previous decisons and making gun ownership unconnected to service in a militia a few years ago. Still my friend and I each read the same sentence:
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
and we each have a different interpretation of what the sentence should mean. I place more emphasis on the first half, and he sees the second half as being more important. If one believes the original intent of the founding fathers is the deciding factor, there is still room for both interpretations. If one strictly construes what our 18th Century forefathers meant, consider the following quote from the
Militia Act of 1792
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball...
There's nothing about various kinds of armor piercing bullets or assault rifles. Just white males, muskets and compulsory service in a well regulated militia.