On their respective pages to be found on the online encyclopedia of questionable credibility, we find out that one went to Harvard Law School and the other went to Winston-Salem Teachers College. But, being as that online encyclopedia has questionable credibility, I’m not going to call it a day, quite yet.
Okay, I’ve come to the closest I can come to a credible conclusion.
Scalia is more credible than Farrakhan when it comes to interpreting legal and Constitutional language.
That said, Farra-CLOWN should read Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller. One of Scalia’s conclusions is that, taking this text of Amendment the Second into consideration, and leaving out two commas for the purposes of discussion:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That the part after the comma is germane law, and the part before the comma is superfluous chatter, akin to a preface. In other words, what exists before the comma is a possible use for the real civil liberty, i.e. what is stated after the comma. But, according to Scalia, it is not the only possible utility. In Scalia’s mind, and I tend to agree, for purposes of actual nuts and bolts legality, what exists before the comma might as well not exist. (Too, it would be a lot less confusing if it didn’t exist.) It would ultimately mean the same thing for Amendment the Second as if the Framers never wrote the Preamble to the entire Constitution. The Preamble is also non-germane chatter, and does not have legal standing in actual governance. However, because the Preamble was written, some libs try to give it the force of governing power, especially because it contains the cause “general welfare,” which they take to mean monthly checks to ghetto blacks.