On the US Constitution in our modern times

I am not a constitutional scholar, but neither are many people who quote the US Constitution to support a personal socio-political position.  If the Second Amendment right to bear arms is the ultimate legal ground to oppose any gun safety regulation, then consider this: “Arms” might include anything from a knife to a nuclear weapon; landmines around my yard and armored tanks to drive in city streets would qualify as legitimate self-defense arms. Similarly, Supreme Court originalists, asserting that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding “at the time it was adopted”, are challenging the legality of Roe vs Wade, since reproductive rights were never mentioned in the original document.

Of course, nobody is currently advocating a ban on pocket-knifes, nor claiming individual rights to own atomic bombs, landmines or tanks. Scholars have also repeatedly pointed out that the Constitution was written and adopted as a compromise document written by a handful of males with wide vision but who chose to ignore the rights of half of humanity.

My point is: While respecting our Constitution, we should understand it as a historical document full of ambiguities and omissions. We have now challenging issues that aristocratic, paternalistic 18^th century men are not expected to know about, like public health safety and healthcare equity. In discussing the divisive issues of gun and abortion rights, we would be abdicating our communal responsibility to make reasonable, common-sense decisions if we use the Constitution as an obstacle to a more perfect Union.

(a slightly shorter version of this letter was published on June 22, 2022,  in the Gazetter Times, Corvallis, OR)