I thought this was an excellent interview with Judge Scalia. It also portrays the profound difference between the Justices when they make decisions.
There are conservative judges that sincerely do not see an obligation to address the modern era. I do believe Justice Scalia explains these differences quite well. He doesn't do a compare and contrast, however, he does discuss the values dictating his focus on the USA Constitution.
Some coin this as a Living Constitution. Does the USA Constitution actually assign the right to Justices, the Legislature and the Executive Branch to treat it in a way it is responsive to a modern day society. Basically, the Founders were movers and shakers themselves, so when contextualizing the Constitution as a 'carved in stone' document it is not the best endearment of our heritage.
The Founders, including scientists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, remained skeptical the USA Constitution would actually serve the people and remain as a stable form of government. The Founders definitely were interested in creating a nation of, by and for the people. They were not interested in creating a dictatorship of their own words and purpose.
But, in appreciation of Judge Scalia and his reasoning, he does clearly state the limitations of the Second Amendment. It is not as though his point of view is null and void. He does hold a valuable view of the Constitution, that is not it at all. It is the fact that view overrides the realities Americans now live in as they seek the best understanding of the USA Constitution to their new realities opposed to those of the Founders.
I also believe Judge Scalia can be political in his decisions, too. I mean "Broccoli?" Give me a break.
Can the federal government make you buy broccoli? (click here)
