Breyer is a Fool

He makes the assertion that Madison added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution so as to promote its ratification by the States. This means he was yielding to another position thus his own position is irreverent as he agreed that a different position was acceptable. Justice Bryer is asserting that we can in effect undo compromises by choosing one side and considering what they might have wanted had they not been forced to make the compromise. Thus since Madison might not have wanted to prohibit the Federal government from regulating the possession of arms, the measure he created to that effect is invalid.

Also, this focus on the practices of local and State law enforcement at the time of the founding to understand the meaning of the Bill of Rights is misplace. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States at the founding thus local and State law enforcement practices will never be found to be bound by them. In essence the assertion is that protections of the Bill of Rights only apply now if the States where bound by them at the founding and since none were, the protections are nullified.

I may be fair to look at how Bill of Rights restricted the practices of the Federal government at the founding as it was the only party bound by those protections at that point in time. But, since in many cases Federal actions are justified necessary to comply with the authority of the States to act without the restraint of the Constitution, one must be very careful to see if those actions are supported solely on Federal power or if they depend on the power of the States. If they depend on the power of the States that foundation was removed with the 14th Amendment and thus those action are no longer valid.

The Justice's main assertion is that because one party to the communal creation of a legal document, which embodies many compromises, had a personal view that other measures or outcome would have preferable the court may use those personal views to change the meaning of a law. Thus any law maybe held to mean anything the court wishes as long as someone involved in its creation would have preferred the outcome put forth by the court.

I believe that by showing that Madison compromised with the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment it proves that the amendment means not what Madison would have wished it to but what those he appeased with it would have understood it to mean. I believe that first and foremost law mean what they say. What law makers intend or wanted but did not do is irrelevant. Only what they did matters and their thoughts and opinions matter only so far as they are needed to understand what was actually enacted.