It’s not just the Constitution that is a “living document,” as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer proved yesterday when discussing the Second Amendment. Breyer argued that James Madison only included the right to bear arms reluctantly, and only because the states wouldn’t sign the Constitution for fear of creating an overmighty central government. That’s why he voted against the majority in theHeller decision that overturned the federal handgun ban in Washington DC:
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”
Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.
“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”
Read the rest at Hot Air
Have you ever started a job where on day one you march into your boss's office and demand twice as much pay as the offer letter you signed stipulates? You're boss would be more befuddled than Biden after a conversation about long division. You inform your new boss that your ONLY CONCERN was to GET THE JOB so you agreed to anything that could get you over that goal line, and now it's time to take what you really want.
Take a poll and ask any random person if they would want twice as much pay as they're already getting for their job, you'll get a "yes" faster than a TSA interrorgation that asks Barney Frank if he's packin' heat (no guns involved, the officer is just really cute and he misunderstood the question).
Write down the results of your respondents, (or you can save yourself the time and just write 100% in the "yes" column), time stamp it, and now history is officially on your side.
Under which history of what universe is it true that anything in the constitution, a document Breyer has sworn to uphold, can be ignored due to the perceived motivation for its creation?
No offense to the Palinistas, but if people turned off Dancing with the Stars for even five minutes so they can be briefed on the fact that the "progressives" who sit on the Supreme Court today should be outfitted for masks resembling the pigs from Orwell's Animal Farm Democrats would never again see the White House on the sole basis of nominating justices to the Supreme Court.
This is real constitution shredding going on right in front of our faces, not like the unsubstantiated Air America hyperbole conservatives have to put up with from Breyer's ilk.
If the opinions of historians are so important to Breyer then maybe he should consult the ones who actually rely on history. Or better yet take the damn middle man out of it. Hot Air completely vaporizes Breyer's rationale using a devastatingly revelatory quote from Madison himself, so make sure check out the post (the link is in the above blockquote).