The Supreme Court, The Right to Bear Arms and Original Intent

Debate about constitutional interpretation has been ongoing since 1803 when the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison ruled that it had the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Over more than two hundred years, the same constitutional text has been construed to yield diametrically opposite results. Compare Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education, only one among many examples. If the constitutional text is unchanged, how do you explain the interpretive ebb and flow? According to one school of thought, these interpretive swings are due to the predilections and whims of individual judges. Critics of this phenomenon argue that the interpretive focus should be on the text of the constitution and original intent underlying the text. Only through this approach – “originalism” in today’s legal parlance – can an unelected Supreme Court’s proper role be brought into alignment with the other branches of government – both federal and…