Idea room
The latest Supreme Court ruling opens the door for Americans who comply with almost all laws to carry hidden pistols in public. Jennifer Frost asks if the US Constitution needs to be modified for the 21st century.
The United States Constitution, founded by the federal government, is 235 years old.
The US Senate has declared the Constitution to be “the longest-lived government constitution in the world.” This is a pride for many Americans, with the assumption that their longevity provides a source of stability for a huge and vast country.
However, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has recently reinterpreted the Constitution regarding guns with abortion regarding individual rights and government regulations. Environmental protection and government control are also at stake.
These reinterpretations run the risk of exacerbating the conflict between Americans and the current crisis of governance. They raise the fundamental question. How can a government founded by 18th century documents address and solve 21st century problems?
Gun violence once again regained American attention when 19 schoolchildren and two teachers were slaughtered in the hands of an 18-year-old man with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in the wake of a tragedy in Yuvalde, Texas. rice field.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has upheld a lawsuit filed by a local gun club against New York state law and demanded a person applying for permission to carry a hidden pistol to show “a special need for self-defense.” ..
The ruling makes this law unconstitutional in Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. “The rights of well-regulated militias, those who hold and hold weapons, necessary for the security of a free state must not be violated.”
In much of American history, until the beginning of the 20th century, this amendment was understood as part of a well-regulated militia, not as a guarantee of individual gun rights. This understanding allowed local and state gun law to regulate ownership, authorization, and use of firearms.
Another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court concerns abortion. In this case, Dobbsv. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a conservative judge, is expected to reduce abortion rights protected by the federal government unless it is completely abolished.
At issue is Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, but the state has requested the court to go further. To overturn the Roe v. Wade case. Wade legalized the country’s abortion in 1973 and declared that he had no constitutional right to abortion.
Judge Samuel Alito’s cool draft opinion is controversial prior to its formal announcement, but the conservative majority does just that, depriving Americans of the rights they have been dependent on for fifty years. It’s up to the state to protect it. Instead, the right to abortion.
Arito’s proposed decision overturns previous court interpretations of the two amendments. The ninth amendment, “The enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution must not be constructed to deny or despise others held by people,” is understood to prescribe “rights of privacy,” 14th. The amended adequacy clause, “No one must be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” means that the limitation of the right to privacy is “compulsory national interest”. It means that it must be justified.
Based on this, Roe granted the right to abortion, but announced that it was not absolute. The state may restrict access for multiple reasons and continues to do so. Despite these restrictions, Arito claims the Roe v. Wade case. Wade’s decision was “terribly wrong from the beginning.”
If this decision is passed, the decisions of other courts based on the right to personal privacy and the freedom of state action to use Roe as a precedent will be undermined, for example by contraception and gay marriage.
Being ready to overturn the reconciled law on abortion and guns, conservative judges dismiss or downplay the historical background and current situation. They do this by claiming loyalty to the original interpretation of the Constitution and amendments.
Regarding the right to abortion, Judge Arito claims that “the Constitution does not mention abortion,” but of course it is not. At the time of the country’s founding, abortion was a legitimate “pre-acceleration” (before fetal movement was detected). It was only completely criminalized in the late 19th century. And the Muskets and flintlock pistols of the Constitutional Amendment Article 2 and the era of state soldiers were replaced by exponentially more powerful weapons and gunfire cases.
In the short term, the Supreme Court will rule that way without concern for the consequences. Americans often amend the Constitution and propose to improve it to meet the new conditions of the new century. The founding father realized that changes were needed to address future challenges, so he included a correction process, which made the process very difficult.
There is another possible response. It could catch the attention of the Supreme Court’s originalists. We were able to remind them and all Americans of the preamble to the Constitution.
These days, it’s called the “forgotten preamble” because it’s rarely completely quoted beyond the first three words. Enacting and establishing this Constitution for the United States, ensuring common defense, promotion of general welfare, and the blessing of freedom to ourselves and our descendants. This shows the purpose of the Constitution, and everything that follows serves that purpose.
Indeed, gun control can be seen as a guarantee of domestic tranquility, and the right to abortion can be seen as ensuring the freedom of women, both of which can be interpreted as promoting general welfare. Do you?
With the United States Constitution marked 235, it’s time to remember why it was written and ratified in the first place. In retrospect, it may help you move forward.