In response to BND letter writer Frankie Seaberry: Let’s look for an authority on the Constitution other than Barack Obama. For me, my first choice would be those who drafted the document.
After the Revolution, the authors of the Constitution were not interested in trading a distant imperial ruler for a home-grown despot. But they came to the realization that a weak confederation of states was not going to work. With great trepidation, the solution was a stronger central government with well-defined limitations.
The states were to answer to their citizens with senators representing the interest of the states and congressmen representing the interests of the citizens at the federal level. The Bill of Rights clearly limited the powers of the central government, and those rights not specifically given to the federal government were to go to the states and the citizens.
As to the right to bear arms, that is precisely what they had in mind. In reading the framer’s correspondence and following the debates during the Constitutional Convention, confiscation of citizens’ firearms was suggested and soundly rejected. Advances in technology does not negate the those rights.
Never miss a local story.
As much as Congress has acted to erode the rights of the individual, the states have been remiss in surrendering power to the feds.
As to the qualifications of the Harvard grad who thinks the Constitution is subject to change as he sees fit, we really do not know how great a scholar he is as his records are not available for review. I suspect Obama is as much a constitutional scholar as Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.