Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 98.0

Cite as:  554 U. S. ____ (2008) 

31 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

Counseling that “[t]he fairest and most rational method to 
interpret  the  will  of  the  legislator,  is  by  exploring  his
intentions  at  the  time  when  the  law  was  made,  by  signs
the most natural and probable,” Blackstone explained that
“[i]f  words  happen  to  be  still  dubious,  we  may  establish 
their  meaning  from  the  context;  with  which  it  may  be  of 
singular  use  to  compare  a  word,  or  a  sentence,  whenever 
they  are  ambiguous,  equivocal,  or  intricate.    Thus,  the 
proeme,  or  preamble,  is  often  called  in  to  help  the  con­
struction of an act of parliament.”  1 Commentaries on the 
Laws  of  England  59–60  (1765)  (hereinafter  Blackstone). 
In  light  of  the  Court’s  invocation  of  Blackstone  as  “ ‘the
preeminent  authority  on  English  law  for  the  founding
generation,’ ”  ante,  at  20  (quoting  Alden  v.  Maine,  527 
U. S.  706,  715  (1999)),  its  disregard  for  his  guidance  on 
matters of interpretation is striking. 

Postenactment Commentary 

The  Court  also  excerpts,  without  any  real  analysis, 
commentary  by  a  number  of  additional  scholars,  some
near  in  time  to  the  framing  and  others  post-dating  it  by
close to a century.  Those scholars are for the most part of
limited  relevance  in  construing  the  guarantee  of  the  Sec­
ond  Amendment:  Their  views  are  not  altogether  clear,32 

—————— 

32 For example, St. George Tucker, on whom the Court relies heavily, 
did  not  consistently  adhere  to  the  position  that  the  Amendment  was 
designed to protect the “Blackstonian” self-defense right, ante, at 33.  In 
a series of unpublished lectures, Tucker suggested that the Amendment 
should  be  understood  in  the  context  of  the  compromise  over  military 
power  represented  by  the  original  Constitution  and  the  Second  and
Tenth Amendments: 
“If a State chooses to incur the expense of putting arms into the Hands
of its own Citizens for their defense, it would require no small ingenuity
to prove that they have no right to do it, or that it could by any means
contravene the Authority of the federal Govt.  It may be alleged indeed 
that  this  might  be  done  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  laws  of  the
federal Government, or of shaking off the union: to which the plainest