Constitution not ours to interpret

The problem with the Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment is not that it granted an individual right. That is welcome enough. But they once again said without saying it that the written text of the Constitution does not mean what it says.

By that I mean this: The written text does not say it is a right as long as an individual citizen gets "permission" from any local, state or national government, including the Supreme Court. They should have decided unanimously that the amendment really means what it says, not what an individual or group of individuals think it means.

All this interpretation of the Constitution started in 1803 when Chief Justice Marshall declared that it is the role of the Supreme Court to "say what the law is." That is not its role because the Constitution does not say it is.

There is no authority in the Constitution for anyone to interpret the document. A law that can be interpreted is not really a law but a guideline, simply because people differ in their opinions. The Supremes should have established once and for all that the Constitution says what it says and thus means what it says, not what someone thinks it says.

James King

St. Charles