With the recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, folks are writhing in fear over the prospect of Obama appointing a new SC Judge. “This”, they say, “could be the most monumental appointment in history and could drastically change our political landscape” and this “is especially true with regards to how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted.”
This is all true, if you buy into the erroneous notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality, and if the States do hot adhere to their duty, as Madison said, to “interpose for arresting the progress of evil” when a branch of the general government assumes powers never consented to it.
Scalia’s death has exposed what many who have studied the constitution’s history have said for years: That the court has assumed too much power in anointing itself -through “case law” and “court precedent”, rather than actual “constitutionalism”- as “the final say” on what the constitution means.
This is not what the Founders intended, and it is not what the constitution allows.
More @ The Abbeville Institute
Precedents are not Constitutional law. Too many decisions are based on precedents instead of a reading of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Delete