It certainly did mean that, and some states certain did do it. That fell out of favor, and was made officially binding on the states when the establishment clause was incorporate (which you know, of course). But for the first few decades, some states did have established churches. If you look at the original MA state constitution, it places some religious requirements on all residents:
IOW, Catholics and Jews can jolly well move to Rhode Island!
Why do you find that fascinating? It strikes me as requiring an Asperger’s-ish view of the constitution, i.e. it says what it says and that’s what it says - with no regard for the relative need for or merit of its parts. Who are these insisting liberals you claim maintain that ALL constitutional rights must “be read as broadly as possible” with no effort to distinguish among those rights in case some pose a net harm to American society?
What you imply is a liberal fault is really just a symptom of being a rational adult. Heck, someone could be a rational adult who believes in total or near-total freedom to keep and bear arms, yet feels the first amendment (or the fourth, or the fifth, or any of them, really) should have some limits. I would expect a rational adult to be able to present his or her reasoning along those lines. Someone who insisted that all constitutional items must be read literally and can never ever ever be changed, limited or reinterpreted… well… I would suspect that person of some form of impairment.
Funny because it seems it is conservatives who are strict constructionists on the 2nd amendment.
They brook absolutely no divergence from, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Liberals are pointing out they are ignoring the first half and that is unreasonable and that, like all other constitutional rights, it is possible to limit those rights.
They’re supposed to be formally changed, by the explicit amendment process, which is there to ensure that a change to the Constitution is really desired by an abiding supermajority of the people. This has been repeated so many times on this board that I’m amazed that people keep insisting that abiding by a written constitution is no different from being subject to the dead hand of the past. Fer chissake, gun control advocates claim that something like 80% of the population want stricter gun control? Where is this silent majority when it comes to actually putting forward the votes that would support an amendment?
Of course, now I’m kind of curious who astorian had in mind when picturing someone who was a “constructionist” about the entire constitution. To my knowledge, even Justices who’ve been described as such (or described themselves as such) picked-and-chose which articles and amendments they liked best and defended most, while recognizing limits on others.
The implied accusation of hypocrisy only works if such a person exists, while that person is calling for limits on some aspect of the constitution - not necessarily the 2nd Amendment, of course.
I’m amazed (well, slightly surprised) at your assumption I was unfamiliar with the amendment process. As long as your constitution remains a “broad-stroke” document, leaving it to congress to legislate the specifics and the judiciary to check those specifics for constitutional validity, your comment is irrelevant.
I’ve heard the interesting argument that the Bill of Rights were actually drafted as something of a diversion.
The purpose of the Constitution had been to create a strong national government. There were plenty of people at the time who wanted a weak national government. So when these people who wanted a weak national government couldn’t kill the Constitution outright, they proposed that it immediately be amended. The intent was to add a bunch of amendments that would reduce the powers of the national government and increase the powers of the state governments.
Madison, who wanted a strong national government, headed this off by agreeing to write the proposed amendments. But he avoided writing any proposals that would significantly change the balance of power between the states and the national government. Instead he made the focus of the new amendments the protection of individual rights. He then submitted his proposed amendments in 1789 and the arguments over ratifying these diverted attention away from any efforts to propose other power-limiting amendments. By the time Madison’s proposals were ratified in 1791 people had accepted the idea of a national government and the anti-federalist movement was spent. Its last hurrah was the enactment of the Eleventh Amendment in 1794.
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Does this mean that the states are free to establish a religion?
Prior to the 1940s, yes, I would say they could have. This is because SCOTUS ruled in 1833 that the Bill of Rights was not binding on the states. However, in 1947, the Establishment clause was incorporated against the states in Everson v. Board of Education.
The real nail in the saviour, as it were, was 1961’s Torcaso v. Watkins, I suggest.
In any case, early on several of the states did establish official religions and/or laws mandating religious worship/membership/attendance. The last was Massachusetts, who disestablished in 1833.
Torcaso v. Watkins cited Everson v. Board of Education as precedent for its interpretation of the Establishment clause. In any case, Everson v. BoE explicitly answered the poster’s question:
1939
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
