I see your point, but as it applies in the general, (as opposed to a specific case as you bring up), it looks to me like the SCOTUS is THE final word on what the Constitution means. If they would say that the 2nd applies only to the state's right to have a National Guard.... then that becomes the law of the land. The big problem we have, is that the government does not follow the Constitution. When Congress passes laws they do not have the authority to pass... and when a Supreme Court says the law means what they WISH it says, rather that what it clearly says. We granted them the power to make those decisions, and until we amend the Constitution to allow the people to overrule their decisions... they ARE the final word.... IMO.
I see your point, but as it applies in the general, (as opposed to a specific case as you bring up), it looks to me like the SCOTUS is THE final word on what the Constitution means. If they would say that the 2nd applies only to the state's right to have a National Guard.... then that becomes the law of the land. The big problem we have, is that the government does not follow the Constitution. When Congress passes laws they do not have the authority to pass... and when a Supreme Court says the law means what they WISH it says, rather that what it clearly says. We granted them the power to make those decisions, and until we amend the Constitution to allow the people to overrule their decisions... they ARE the final word.... IMO.
Just to be clear: Although addressed to be, those are not my words... :)