February 24, 2026
The term “originalism” refers to the idea that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was created and adopted. And therefore, an “originalist” is someone who understands the logic of this position and who accepts it.
The contrary position held by many is that the Constitution is a “living document,” which means that what the Founders thought 250 years ago is meaningless today, and the Constitution should be interpreted today using concepts that are “more modern,” even if they are actually contrary to the original meaning.
Under this way of thinking the right of free speech could be interpreted as meaning not that we are free to say a broad array of things, but that we can only say what the controlling individuals allow us to say, however limited that may be.
That mentality is like believing the Constitution is merely an ancient guideline, sort of like a drawing of the design of a house that can be altered to suit the desires of the owner.
But that concept is both foolish and dangerous. It’s like believing that the commandment “thou shalt not steal” really contains an unwritten phrase: “unless you want to.”
When the Constitution and laws are viewed under this foolish concept, it is referred to as “judicial activism.” Every law and constitutional ideal changes with the tide of human preference. That is like being on the ocean in a boat with no motor, sails, or oars, and being completely at the mercy of the weather and the water.
Originalism prevents activist interpretation of the Constitution’s concepts, and establishes standards our Founders intended to last forever, or at least until they are changed by appropriate methods, such as through acts of Congress supported by a substantial majority of the people.
An area where there is great difference on meaning is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That language seems fairly clear. But some disagree, and try to alter the meaning to help achieve their goals. However, if the original language is not clear enough, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 may help. It defines the Amendment’s meaning as an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, and other similar things.
Contrarians to the original context of the Amendment say that it does not say what types of Arms are covered and which ones are not. Of course. That is the salient point.
The Founders did not say that pistols are covered but rifles and cannons are not. They said “keep and bear Arms”: Meaning, all Arms.
We have a wider variety of Arms/weapons around now than in the 1700s. Anti-gunners want to outlaw “assault rifles” — whatever those are, as no legal description exists — and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. They also want to outlaw automatic rifles and machine guns. Their argument is that the Founders would likely have not included these in the right to bear Arms, if they had existed in the 1700s. We will never know if that is true.
However, we must remember that our Founders were not worried about different types of guns, they were concerned about specific types of government. One type of government they meticulously avoided was a pure democracy, because of the danger of that type of government to become tyrannical, where 51 percent of the people could vote to jail or kill the other 49 percent.
And while some of today’s weapons can be more of a problem than the others, the imperative question remains: Why should law-abiding citizens be forbidden from owning them if they want them?
Many states have gun laws, and some of those laws are very restrictive. Yet, in some of these states, gun crimes are commonly committed, anyway. It isn’t the guns that are the problem, it is the persons who have the guns, often illegally, that is the problem. Many law-abiding citizens own one or more guns. Neither the person or his or her guns have committed crimes.
Instead of interfering with the constitutionally guaranteed rights by limiting or outlawing gun ownership, we instead need to work very hard to teach people from a very young age about right and wrong, and being a good citizen. Discourage crime through high standards, strict adherence, and severe/harsh punishment for disobeying those standards and the laws that they have produced.
Teaching our young people how to be a good human being is a critical factor, one that has been ignored much too often in recent years. The nuclear family has fallen drastically in practice, and our education system is infected with many people who are interested in pushing their preferred political ideals more than presenting approved subject matter.
Consequently, the sense of proper behavior, and understanding and appreciating our system of government are well below the acceptable level. But it is not too late to begin restoring these concepts to where they should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment