is not a very thoughtful fellow.
as an attorney, you'd think he would know the law is built from principles and their exceptions, from definitions that expand and are refined over time, from knowledge that grows through experience.
the constitution isn't something different from the law. it is its foundation. and constructed from the same material.
ted cruz thinks the second amendment makes an absolute statement about "the people's" (who qualifies as the people) "right" (does the right define the weapons to be borne) "to bear" (what obligations exist when they are not borne) "arms" (how do you define arms).
even mad scalia does not think the second amendment brooks no exception. but if we are to go strict constructionist, we know people are male and white, the right requires the availability of no more than one type of weapon, the arms storage obligations are open to any definition and the arms themselves are muskets.
that is before you begin to address the militia condition the justification for which no longer exists. or the times or locations in which arms may be borne, which clearly isn't everywhere (eg prisons) or all the time.
cruz looks awful smug, as well.
| 
