Source: http://benchrest.com/archive/index.php/t-53991.html?s=0db00c2089a38769d4455ae33a57884f
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:58:30+00:00

Document:
The methodology of interpretation used by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller opinion is probably not that which the lawmakers intended for him to use. Scalia states that he will interpret the text of the Second Amendment according to the "normal and ordinary" meanings that would been given it by "ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and would have known what the object of interpreting a law was when the Second Amendment was made. He was preaching it in 1812 to the Governor of Virginia.
The... maxims of the bench, to seek the will of the legislator and his words only, are proper... for judicial government.
Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse To Cherry Pick Evidence That Squares With His Personal Views.
In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored my favorite activist on the Court, Justice Scalia attempts to ascertain the meaning of the term "keep arms." However, the term "keep arms" doesn't actually appear in the Second Amendment and he's already ascertained the meaning of the word "arms."
17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia).
When Scalia was ascertaining the meaning of the word "arms", he went to "Samuel Johnson’s dictionary." However, this time he goes to "Commentaries on the Laws of England." He's obviously cherry picking.
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
--Five activist Justices on the U. S. Supreme Court as of July 2008.
The author of Johnson's Dictionary wasn't even an American and Justice Ginsburg is hardly a member of "the founding generation." Once again, it is obvious that the Court is cherry picking.
In the passage below from the U. S. Supreme Court Opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C., my favorite activist on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, construes the term "keep arms." I note for the record that the term "keep arms" doesn't actually appear in the Second Amendment. I note also, that Sclaia has already construed the words "keep" and "arms."
Recall that Scalia said he was going to construe the words of the Second Amendment according to the normal use of the words by ordinary Americans at the time the Amendment was made. Instead of following the rule he said he was going to use, Scalia construes the term according to the way Sir William Blackstone, King William and Queen Mary, and William Hawkins, an English Barrister, used the term. None of those persons qualify as ordinary Americans at the time the Second Amendment was made.
the Crown 26 (1771) (similar).
What Scalia did in the above passage was legislate from the bench to insert the word "individual" before the word "right" in the Second Amendment. He justifies his judicial activism with the claim that English law once forbid some subjects of the Crown to "keep arms in their houses", based on their religious beliefs.
Scalia’s methodology of interpretation is to decide what he wants a word to mean, find a source that defines or uses it in a way that squares with his desired outcome and then try to convince us that he followed an objective un biased method of interpretation.
When interpreting the phrase “right of the people”, Scalia ignores the “usual and ordinary meaning” of the words comprising the phrase, and instead relies exclusively on the context of the phrase. That is to say, he considers nothing but the way the phrase, and the word “people” is used in other parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Recall that Scalia said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases as they were used in their normal meaning (which includes an idiomatic meaning, but excludes secret or technical meanings) and their ordinary meaning by ordinary Americans of the founding generation. Scalia said nothing whatsoever about establishing their meaning from the context.
However, when interpreting the word “arms”, Scalia relies on the way the word was used in a passage from Alexander Pope’s translation of Homer’s Iliad and by Timothy Cunningham in a passage from A new and complete Law Dictionary. Again, recall that Scalia said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases as they were used in their normal meaning (which includes an idiomatic meaning, but excludes secret or technical meanings) and their ordinary meaning by ordinary Americans of the founding generation. Homer and Timothy Cunningham weren’t ordinary Americans of the founding generation.
Scalia's a hoot. He said he was going to interpret the Second Amendment according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation. Then he immediately proceeds to construe some of the words of the Amendment according to the use of the words in other sections of the Constitution.
What a bozo! If he's going to use context, he shouldn't tell us the was going to use the normal and ordinary meanings of the words.
"‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).
Did anyone notice that Rex v. Marks was an English case? The five judicial activist are using very old foreign law to interpret the U. S. Constitution.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §51
 v. 
 v.