As the campaign continues on its mad course, I hear many of the candidates focusing on the need to go back to the actUAl wording of the Constitution, but for those of us who read the Constitution it seems that perhaps they need glasses.  For example, thley often refer to our Scond Amendment rights to support free and unrestricted access to any type of firearms to anyone over the age of 18.  But what does lhe Second Amendment actually say?  It says "A well reguated militia, being necessary to the security 0f a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".   The amendment relates that right to the need for a well regulated militia.  Of coursee, to my knowledge, there  are few, if any, currently active militias (unless one considers the army reserve or actiive duty personnel), but there is, of course, always the possible need of raising one quickly.  There should be no problem in requiring gun owners to register firearms.  Every one who drives a car is required to register it.  In order to drive the car, one must be licensed, and becoming licenses a background check is required to eliminate persons who are blind, or who have a medical problem such as untreatable seizures, of have previously had their license revoked due to dangerous driving habits such as vehicular manslaughter, or repeated offenses related to reckless driving.  They would not allow you to register a 20 ton earth mover.  How is this different from requiring registration and background checks for purchasing a firearm?   The NRA and others who oppose ny type of gun laws  argue that the purpose of any gun law is to take away our guns, but I'm 72 years old and I have never heard of any intent  to take away the right of citizens to purchase or own firearms by any elected political body.  The only purpose behind these arguments is to generate fear in the American people against what the government COULD do, not the reality of what they WOULD do.  There us no evidence gun legislation being considered in any way impact Our Second Amendment rights.   Unfortunately, certain segments of our government who claim to support a "strict interpretation" of our Constitutiom are willing to admit that gun control regulatory regulations in no way violates the "right to keep and bar arms" that is the core of our Second  Amendment rights.

Another example of the violation of  the "Strict Interpretation"  requirement of the Constitution that in order to hold the office of President, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States specified in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.  The itzenship of a child has always been defind by the citizenship of the parent, but recently a federal judge has ruld that in order to be a natural born citizen, one must be physically born in the United States.  We have thousands of US servicemen and women stationed overseas, many of them with spouses anad children living off-base in the community some of them for many years.  Under this judge's decision, all children that tlhey might have that were born while they were stationed overseas. Under this judge's decision,  none of these children could be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the Unitd States.  The judge's decision to add, or change, or redefine a commonly understood  definition is in direct conflict with the concept of "strict interpretation of the Constitution" espoused by certain politicians.

We have already had accusations by Congress that the President should not even propose a candidate to replace Scalia on the Suppreme Court.  In fact, one of the Senatoors from Texas has stated that by doing that, he is overstepping his Constitutional authority.  In fact, Congress seems to feel that he is overstopping his authority by issuing excutive orders, and that by so doing, he is usurping their authority to enact any attempt to chande the sttus quo.  In fact, the Senaator from Texas states athat the President is abusing his power by these acts,  H clharges that by thes actions lthe President is trying to LEAD this country.  To lead this country?  Isn't that why we elected him?  Wasn't that the "will of the peope"?  Are the rights of those who elected the Pesident to do his job as delinieated in the Constition to be ingored   in favor of those that Congress hopes are elected nearly a year in the future? Resulting in a Congress evenly divided betwen those that have more conservative values and those who espouse a more liberal interpretation?

Former  Justice Scalia supported a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution.  The current Congress claims that they follow that interpretaion, using that as a basis for refusing to act on the Presidenet's proposed replacement for former Justice Scalia.  Apparently they are unaware of Section Article II, Section 2 of the constitution defining the duties of the President which specify that "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the Advise and Consent of the Semate.to ----------- (to) appoint-------- Judges of the Supreme Court".  A strict interpretation of the Constitution thus cleary states the right (and the responsibility) to appoint a new Supreme Court judge, and the right (and responsibility) of Congress to act  on that proposal, and that right (and responsiblity)