Does Bruen migrate throughout the Constitution?

[Fedora]

If I understand correctly, Bruen concludes that the 2nd Amendment must be read with it's words having the same meaning they had during the period the Amendment was passed. In the Second’s case, this was identified as being between the ratification of the 2nd (1791) and 14th (1868) Amendments.

Does that conclusion apply to the entire Constitution as well as it's other Amendments?

 

[Afrikeber]

Hell no!!!!

 

[swinokur]

It wasn’t addressed to the court so no imo

The court rules on the issue presented, nothing else

 

[Fedora]

Hell no!!!!

. . . he explained.

 

[Fedora]

It wasn’t addressed to the court so no imo

The court rules on the issue presented, nothing else

Understood. But the principles under which the Constitution is adjudicated should be pretty consistent, don't you think?

My intention is not to be arguementative. It's only that the "as understood back then" filter, if universal, could be kind of important.

 

[eruby]

Shall not be infringed

Same as it ever was

 

[swinokur]

I think the 2A is more open to interpretation, hence the many different interpretations. I think SCOTUS has attempted to remove some of that ambiguity. They obviously need to clarify further, since a few states still “don’t seem to get it.”

I think they will FAFO soon enough

 

[FrankZ]

I don't think the 2A is really open to interpretation. I think it is open for rationalizations so people can ignore what the plain text says to meet their ends.

 

[Batt816]

I think they will FAFO soon enough

I pray you are 100% correct.

 

[Slhaney]

I don't think the 2A is really open to interpretation. I think it is open for rationalizations so people can ignore what the plain text says to meet their ends.

I absolutely agree. Plain english. I've always said that if someone is trying to explain what 2A means, its because they don't like what it clearly says.

 

[press1280]

It sort of does although with the other amendments having many more cases at SCOTUS, they're already baked in and wouldn't be materially affected by Bruen.
I would say though if you read through the 1A cases you'll see references to the founding era.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Understood. But the principles under which the Constitution is adjudicated should be pretty consistent, don't you think?

My intention is not to be arguementative. It's only that the "as understood back then" filter, if universal, could be kind of important.

Could be important indeed .

But it will have to be separately litigated for each issue .

 

[Boxcab]

Interesting thread. I would think that it could be applied, but measured a bit different for the ammendments passed at later dates. For example, the 14th A would rely on the 1890's more so than the 1770's analogs.

I'm willing to be enlighten.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Threeband]

Understood. But the principles under which the Constitution is adjudicated should be pretty consistent, don't you think?

My intention is not to be arguementative. It's only that the "as understood back then" filter, if universal, could be kind of important.

That's the basis of the current debate between Originalism and the modern view of the Constitution as a " living, evolving thing which we may twist and stretch and reinterpret from moment to moment as seems convenient or useful to our agenda."

 

[DanGuy48]

I absolutely agree. Plain english. I've always said that if someone is trying to explain what 2A means, its because they don't like what it clearly says.

“…if someone is trying to explain what 2A means, its because they don't like what it clearly says.”

That’s almost sig worthy.

 

[teratos]

I believe it should. The English language evolves with time. 250 years can change a lot. Go back 600 years and read some Chaucer. Middle English is strikingly different than what we see today, though you can make it out.

The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue by… | Poetry Foundation

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,

www.poetryfoundation.org

It is very important to know exactly the rights they were protecting. Some amendments are still quite clear. In the case of the 2A, “a well regulated militia” is very confusing to some people. I’m this particular instance, the definitions of “regulated” and “militia” from the 17th century must be noted to cut through any ambiguity modern readers may experience.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Does that conclusion apply to the entire Constitution as well as it's other Amendments?

Hell no!!!!

But it has.

See Dobbs.

Plain language. It means what is says. Nothing less and nothing more.

 

[trickg]

SCOTUS decisions, if you stop and read them thoroughly, almost always reference other SCOTUS decisions. Bruen leaned heavily on Heller and McDonald, so at some point, yes - Bruen will be referenced as a means to decide other SCOTUS cases.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I believe it should. The English language evolves with time. 250 years can change a lot. Go back 600 years and read some Chaucer. Middle English is strikingly different than what we see today, though you can make it out.

The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue by… | Poetry Foundation

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,

www.poetryfoundation.org

It is very important to know exactly the rights they were protecting. Some amendments are still quite clear. In the case of the 2A, “a well regulated militia” is very confusing to some people. I’m this particular instance, the definitions of “regulated” and “militia” from the 17th century must be noted to cut through any ambiguity modern readers may experience.

The "highly educated" are the most notorious violators.

Even though to this day "regulated" def1;

control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.

Def2;

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

They get it wrong because they are trained to get it wrong.

 

[fishgutzy]

Bruen should, in theory, can be used in other cases where the gov't claims a "right to safety" or "public safety"excuse for infringing other constitutional rights.
There is no right to safety. Imagine New York and MA governors claiming a "public safety" excuse to force citizens to house military age male illegal aliens in their homes. Both states are moving in that direction. Healey declared an "emergency." Next step it going door to door and taking "inventory" of spare rooms in towns like Woburn (but nit Winchester) and ordering people to take in illegal aliens.