Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talks with The Takeaway host John Hockenberry. (Photo by Jillian Weinberger.)
In the wake of the fierce, nationwide debate over gun rights and gun control, Justice Ginsburg also explained the historical basis for her view on the Second Amendment.
"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."
Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amednment.
"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."
As for the Heller case, decided by the court in 2008, Ginsburg says the court erred in its decision.
"If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new," she said. "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."
See, I'm not alone.
ReplyDeleteTrue Laci,
ReplyDeleteYou aren't alone. But, as with Justice Ginsberg, in the minority.
A slim minority which won't last much longer.
DeleteI don't think that means what you think it means...
DeleteYou lost me.
DeleteNot alone in being incorrect either.
ReplyDeletePlease show where this law is and its exact content.
"The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. "
Did that harridan just say that the founding fathers wanted a standing army but didn't have one because they couldn't afford it? Historically?
ReplyDeleteShe probably thinks that those soldiers could have been quartered in private residences, also.
orlin sellers
Justices get things wrong from time to time. I am thankful that on this subject, this particular erroneous justice is in the minority.
ReplyDeleteHow come she said it was an active individual right in 2008, but that its scope allowed for baning handguns? That's not consistent with what she says here.
ReplyDelete"The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."
ReplyDeleteActually, that was what was covered in the references to the Militia in Article 1, so the Second Amendment had to do something else in addition to that. Given British attempts to disarm the militias at the beginning of the war, we can see that their concern was the government trying to do the same to solidify its power.
Yes, Laci, you're not alone in being very sloppy and wrong.
It's not a matter of right, or wrong, but of interpretation, which changes when the political make-up of the court changes.
ReplyDeleteShe is correct. Washington had no money to arm his militias; he had no money to feed, or pay them. England was trying to disarm militia members. That's why the 2A starts with the militia clause first.
Then their is the pesky problem of why the people and the government did not read the 2A as an individual right for 100 years. The government never questioned that individuals should be armed for protection and gathering food, the 2A was to ensure militias had a right to own guns, because the British were targeting militia members and taking their guns away.
That statement that it was not read as an individual right is a misconception based on a lie by the gun controllers who misrepresent the actual precedent.
DeleteA court could find that sense militias are extinct now and we have a well regulated and armed military, national guard, and civilian police forces (whose arms we supply) that the right is no longer necessary. The right exists, but the reason for the right (as stated in the 2A-militias) does not. That's a legitimate legal debate.
DeleteSo we have the right, and I for one do not want to take that right away. But I see no problem with putting rules and regulations on that right, to qualify for that right. It's a good thing felons cannot have that right. It's a good thing minors don't have that right. Other rights have qualifiers and limitations. The 2A should be no different, except it refers to a deadly weapon.
Each generation has a right to define rules and regulations according to what's safe for the society they live in. Obviously a different society than the 18th century, and different safety concerns. They even have the right to eliminate the 2A if they have the majority votes.
The argument has been won in court. Despite the militia clause, we have an individual right, until a future court decides differently. These rights were not written by God, and we have a process to amend, or eliminate those rights; given to us by the founders who wrote those rights into law.
Rights are not given to us by government or by consensus. We're born with them. The job of government is to recognize and protect the rights that we have. A majority may vote to violate a right, but that doesn't remove it or invalidate it.
DeleteObsolete and anachronistic, I've been saying it for years.
DeleteYes, you've been bouncing around between that and various other explanations such as "still in effect, but a collective right, not an individual one."
DeleteYou can't pick a consistent grounds to justify your demands, but you make up for it with irrationality, hubris, and insults.
The collective right argument and the obsolete argument are not mutually exclusive.
DeleteThis is another failed attempt at a gotcha.
Anon and RBG's obsolete arguments are based on it being a right for individuals to own guns which is now obsolete. The collective right is a clumsy interpretation of the text which assumes that the Amendment is not obsolete, and thus has to be gotten out of the way by another method. Yes, if you really wanted to you could structure an argument for it being collective and obsolete, but that isn't what any of you have done, and I don't think you'll find many people who will buy into that since it would basically allow the Federal Government to disarm all of the state governments if they so chose.
Delete"Rights are not given to us by government or by consensus. We're born with them."
DeleteNow there's a hillbilly who does not understand law.
Right, God gives you the right to a gun. Laughable.
If I'm born in China, do I have a right to own a gun?
You only have a right because the Constitution says so.
That right can be wiped out by majority vote (just like alcohol) God has nothing to do with it..
Exactly! Mike and Laci are both inconsistent in which "you don't have a right to own a gun" argument they use. The gun control people never seem to care how they get there, so long as they reach the conclusion they want. Textbook case of working logic backwards.
DeleteAs Tennessean said, to combine the two ideas on the 2A that you use, is to say that the Federal government can disarm state level governments. You day it is a collective right that USED to belong to the states, but is now obsolete. Do you really think that's the case?
I've asked Laci this before, and of course he didn't answer, presumably because he has no answer: regarding the idea that the second amendment has a built in "automatic repeal", what determines when that repeal gets activated? Can you pinpoint the exact moment in history when this happened? What were the triggers? If its vague and gradual, how do you know we are there now? And since when is vague and gradual part of law? Can you cite any constitutional precedent for this "auto-repeal deal"?
ReplyDeleteIf course there is a process- the constitutional amendment process. Since that hasn't happened, the 2A means the same thing it did 200 years ago. Until then, you can't wish it to be obsolete. No your not the only one who wants to wish it away, and I suppose if every single person felt the same way as you, then it would be obsolete (because no one is excersizing their right). But as soon as one person points to the constitution and says, "hey", then there is a controversy. Today, we have plenty of people who disagree with Laci and RBG. So start the repeal process and see just how many people agree with you.
Mikeb, you cannot simply declare parts of the Constitution to be obsolete. There is a specified process for changing that document. Otherwise, you have to live with it.
ReplyDeleteIt's cute how trolls who talk about American history know so little about it. During Prohibition, we hillbillies supplied alcohol to a lot of people. Look at where the early NASCAR drivers got their start. Thank goodness for hillbillies and gangsters when you need them.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, after all of that history, Mike thinks that those hillbillies would just register all of their guns and turn in the ones he deems too dangerous, or turn them all in if they turn out to be one of the 50% of people he wants to disarm.
DeleteHe's been too long in compliant Europe.
Delete"During Prohibition, we hillbillies supplied alcohol to a lot of people."
ReplyDeleteYes, and breaking the law while you did it. No problem for you, you have described many times that you will break the law, simply because you disagree with the law. Anarchy. You are a criminal. Another reason your guns should be taken away. A traitor to the US Constitution and the US.
"Thank goodness for hillbillies and gangsters when you need them."
ReplyDeletePromoting lawlessness and criminal activity. You really are a dirt bag hillbilly. I hope the law catches up with you. You deserve a LONG prison term.