PEE-PUHL vs. "STATES' RIGHTS"

(The following was eventually published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch in slightly (& poorly) edited form on December 27, 2007 as "Correspondent of the Day.".)

I offer my commendations for both Bruce Tucker of Keswick, the "Correspondent of The Day" (December 19), and Barton Hinkle's Times-Dispatch column of November 27 addressing the clear meaning of "right of the people" in our Constitution and its Amendments.

The US Supreme Court will soon decide the meaning and significance of the plain language in the Second Amendment (*) as it conflicts with stringent gun-control laws in the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, many gun-control advocates seek to "cherry-pick" the Bill of Rights as Mr. Hinkle suggests. But, the Founders were not as sloppy with their use of language as folks are today!

The subject of the Amendment is not the maintenance of "a well-regulated militia." There is no predicate in that precatory "militia" clause! Proper diagramming identifies the subject ("right of the people") and the predicate ("shall not be infringed"). If disarmament be so compelling, then amending the Constitution is the only legitimate remedy.

Interestingly, John C. Calhoun (initially an ardent nationalist) said that the Constitution did NOT guarantee rights to "the people" individually but only collectively through their anointed proxies, the States!

In "Dominion of Memories," Professor Susan Dunn of Williams College cites Calhoun's arguments as derivative of those made by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I was surprised to learn that they initiated both the Doctrine of "Nullification" and the Doctrine of "Interposition," the twin pillars of Calhoun's theories of "states' rights." As Mr. Hinkle points out, the states were reserved (not granted) only "powers" under the Tenth Amendment, not "rights." Only individuals have "rights" (as stated in the Ninth Amendment), and not just the recited ones, either!

If there are too many folks out there who should not have guns, then ignoring the plain language and meanings of the Founders at the whim of some political majority du jour is not the proper way to deal with the problem.

(*)  (Re: DC vs. HELLER, 2008, from Cornell Law School:)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.