Judges interpret in ways to satisfy their own agenda
To the editor:
For those of us who study and love our nation's founding documents, we know how the judge hearing the case about the concealed-carry law will rule. He will rule against the law.
It's a sign of how far this nation's judicial system has departed from interpreting the law as it was written.
The problem today is that judges change the definition of words to facilitate their purposes. This judge, if trends hold true, will change the meaning of one word: justify.
Justify, as the dictionary defines it, means "to demonstrate sufficient legal reason for (an action taken)." Simply put, the clause in the Missouri Constitution that says "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" means that the right to carry a concealed weapon is not stated. But it doesn't prohibit it. It simply says that for there to be a right to carry a concealed weapon, additional laws need to be passed. The writers of the constitution left it open for future lawmakers to decide whether you and I can carry a concealed weapon.
If this judge holds true to current trends, he will change the meaning of the word "justify" to mean "prohibit." It's almost like we're back under the rule of a king, and our rights are decided dependent upon his mood. That is not what America stands for. It is about time that our judges started serving the people and the law rather than furthering their own political agendas.
MARK IAIN SUTHERLAND
Positive Action Coalition