Scalia and the 2nd Amendment

LARRY ANDERSON
Larry Anderson

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, an autopsy was performed, even though the cause of death, massive injuries due to gunshot wounds, was obvious and witnessed, even recorded.

The autopsy was done because it was required.

When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away Feb. 13, no autopsy was performed, even though he died unexpectedly and alone at night. His demise wasn’t noticed until hours after it occurred.

It was announced no autopsy was needed, and Scalia was buried amid the expected ceremonial symbols of respect.

Notably missing at Scalia’s funeral, a snub unprecedented, was Barack Obama, who wasted little time putting forth a nominee as Scalia’s replacement.

It is common knowledge that Obama pines for a liberal majority on the Supreme Court so he can expect rulings consistent with the liberal bend. Scalia was tough as nails when it came to literal interpretations of the Constitution, the opposite of what Obama wants.

Now, am I hinting at some conspiracy? No, but I am pointing out a discrepancy in how two high-profile deaths were handled.

One has to wonder at the timing, reaction, and handling of Scalia’s departure.

Also, Scalia’s replacement has much to do with inevitable rulings concerning issues such as the interpretation of the Second Amendment, even though the Supreme Court has upheld individual rights in regard to the amendment time and again.

Such precedence means nothing to Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both would love to see the Second Amendment repealed, or, at the very least, crippled into malfunction. Neither has made a secret of their intentions.

Indeed, this might have been done by now if not for Antonin Scalia.

Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia is Merrick Garland. One can safely assume that Garland would be a loosey-goosey liberal in his interpretation of the Second Amendment and the right to privately own a means of self-defense. Obama would only nominate an anti-gun judge.

Non-ideologues need not apply.

Like many Americans, I have not paid a lot of attention to the Supreme Court, nor did I know a great deal about Antonin Scalia, a man I have come to respect now that his principles regarding the Constitution have been more forthcoming since his death.

Scalia was more than an interpreter of our Constitution; he was also a defender.

Unlike the liberal faction within the court, Scalia believed in a tight, literal interpretation of the Founders’ intent. In other words, the Constitution can not be twisted to fit a political/social circumstance.

Scalia was a textualist and originalist in matters of the Constitution. These positions aided him in his majority opinion in cases such as District of Columbia v Heller, in which the right to own handguns for the purpose of self-defense was upheld.

Here’s an explanation of textualism: “Textualism” means that whenever courts interpret any legal document — a Constitution, a statute, or a contract — judges should consider first and foremost the precise words of the doucument. So, in Heller, Scalia observed that the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people.” (Source: Antonin Scalia American Rifleman, April issue)

Well, you can see why liberals disliked Scalia. His reading of the Constitution was based on the Founders’ intent. Scalia’s correctness in protecting rights via a literal analysis of the Constitution did not fit with the Left’s need for an interpretation of convenience.

Scalia’s defense of the Constitution has slowed the progressive agenda. Hence, Obama’s frustration.

Originalism is easy enough to understand. Scalia insisted the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original intent, as opposed to some new political construal threatening to individual rights, such as the right to bear arms.

Hillary Clinton has made it clear on the campaign trail that she will go after the Second Amendment. She has stated she will do all she can, for example, to make it impossible to buy, sell, and trade firearms.

HRC favors making manufacturers responsible for how a gun might be used. For instance, if a gun is used in the commission of a crime, the manufacturer must somehow be accountable, as well as the criminal.

It is this kind of abuse that Antonin Scalia fought against.

This is why the appointment of his replacement is so important. A five-four liberal split within the Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment would effectively end that right for you, me and all who obey the law.

Keep that in mind when you see the Republicans in the Senate resist the confirmation of any SCOTUS nominee put forth by Obama or Clinton.

Larry W. Anderson’s novel, John Henry’s War, is available at Maryville Daily Forum.