- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,076
- Reaction score
- 62,238
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well, no, not necessarily. Acts passed in the founding area on a subject also addressed by the constitution logically should carry weight in constitutional interpretation, but they certainly aren't the be-all/end-all.
It shows original intent.
I said it carries weight, but does not solely define it.
You say, no, it is the original intent period.
Have you drafted a brief challenging the constitutionality of a law and argued it in court? Clerked for a justice who asked you to offer an opinion on a case he is considering? Anything like that?
Honestly, I hate the idea of pulling rank on an anonymous message board, but I have to wonder where some posters are getting their ideas about how constitutional interpretation works. I'm simply telling you that your position is too broad. An act passed even that close to the time of the founding does not contain the sole exclusive "original intent" behind an amendment the act relates to. It just doesn't work that way.
The Courts look to history, to related documents like the federalist papers, to the opinions of various founders, so on and so forth. I don't recall specifically if they discussed those acts in Heller or McDonald, but they probably did. It's certainly something that would carry weight, as I said. It just doesn't constitute the sole and exclusive source for the "original intent" of the 2nd Amd.
Constitutional interpretation is a big complicated mess, which is why decisions like Heller and McDonald are often easily over 50 pages long...