Ed breaks apart Breyer’s argument and proves his central point wrong: Madison didn’t include the Second Amendment simply to appease the states. You should go read all of that.
But there’s another point here: Who cares what Madison’s intent was? Who cares why the Second Amendment was added? Who cares what the motivation for its inclusion was? It’s there.
Is Breyer now saying that judges, including the Supreme Court, can ignore rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution based upon the motivation for their inclusion? That judges can decide explicit rights don’t exist because they weren’t included in good faith? Wow.
To say that’s a dangerous precedent is probably the biggest understatement on this blog. That would mean a judge could decide you no longer have the right to free speech or freedom of the press because, hey, those rights were only included to appease one group needed for ratification.
The rights are there, regardless of why they’re there. All that should matter to a judge is the fact that the rights are there.
Breyer demonstrates that left-wing judges go beyond reading the Constitution. They take the initiative to decide which explicit rights are legitimate based upon the motives of the founders. They travel outside of their duties and powers to legislate from the bench. They have the audacity to decide your explicit rights don’t exist because they don’t like them.
This man is serving on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Scary.