Strict, but only when it's convenient

Tom Schaller over at FiveThirtyEight.com has a great post pummeling the typical knee-jerk argument that "Where in the Constitution does it say...?" that we see every time some kook doesn't like what they're seeing on the news.

A sample:

...if you want to be a strict constructionist, fine, but be one even when it’s inconvenient. Imagine if the Second Amendment read as follows: “A woman’s ability to survive childbearing being necessary to a free state, the right to abort a fetus shall not be infringed.” Now, do you think the anti-choice movement would simply ignore the leading clause and resign themselves to the idea that a woman has an unconditional right to abortion? Not a chance, and they'd be right to fight because the language clearly implies a conditional right.

And yet we almost never hear gun rights advocates mention the actual Second Amendment’s leading clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state….,” which at least suggests a collective right—indeed, obligation—to an armed defense of the state, rather than an individual’s right to use arms to protect himself and his property. For the record, I support gun rights with some restrictions, but that’s besides my point, which is that you can’t be so selective in citing the language in the Constitution that you chop off inconveniently ambiguous parts of the same sentence upon which you base a categorical claim.

Strict constructionalism is a perfectly valid viewpoint, so long as those espousing it understand how radically different it is from the America the founders tried to create - and the one espoused by the political right.

Rather like those cautionary tales about "be careful what you wish for." If we had only what was literally spelled out in ink in the Constitution - we would have a truly bizarre nation.