The language of the second and fourteenth amendments are unambiguous and efforts to read words into or out of them violate every rule of constitutional construction.
The simple and correct action the USSC should have taken was to overturn the Slaughterhouse case and its progeny. Doing so would have eliminated hundreds of cases that will now be litigated because the USSC failed to do so in the McDonald case.
>The language of the second and fourteenth amendments are unambiguous and efforts to read words into or out of them violate every rule of constitutional construction.
I agree that they are unambiguous, and my ‘opinion’ reflects a proper analysis of the language of the Second Amendment. The First Amendment is active voice which has a specific person/group (namely, Congress), as the subject, doing something (namely, passing a law); the Second Amendment is written in the passive voice which makes the action/process itself the subject rather than the [irrelevant] actor.
>The simple and correct action the USSC should have taken was to overturn the Slaughterhouse case and its progeny. Doing so would have eliminated hundreds of cases that will now be litigated because the USSC failed to do so in the McDonald case.
Indeed.