Which Constitutional Modality is the Best?

Submission by Juan Elizondo-Alvarez ‘28

The Constitution is, for good reason, regarded as the supreme law of the land. Groundbreaking in terms of substance, revolutionary in precedent moving forward. So why do we have to be careful when reading the Constitution? The reason is up to interpretation. Literally.

There are seven common forms of constitutional interpretation: textualism, original meaning, judicial precedent, prudence, moral reasoning, national identity, structuralism, and historical practice. These interpretations have come to be the status quo through hundreds of years of constitutional spats and disputes. Naturally, the question as to which is the most effective has been discussed for an equally long amount of time. Looking through the lens of the Second Amendment and its history in the Supreme Court, we can find that a certain interpretation will appear magnified compared to its peers. 

The Second Amendment’s exact text states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. While a short and succinct statement, this arguably vague language would be a topic of legal interest for years to come. 

The Second Amendment was largely quiet in the first years of its birth, with a few small cases being resolved over the years. Despite the slow start, the floodgates would burst open following the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. The case involves an individual whose one-year license for a handgun application was denied (a measure created by the District of Columbia) and his argument that this constituted a violation of his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Court majority opinion stated, deferring to original meaning, that the words "Militia" does not apply strictly to military personnel as, at the time the term was written, it referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. Despite using original meaning in drafting the opinion, the Court either overlooked, or deftly ignored that, using its own original meaning, the typical “arms” at the time were flintlock muskets and rifles with bayonets, certainly not the handguns that are being disputed in this case. While useful, original meaning struggles in its need to be inclusive while, not just picking and choosing the attributes of the time period that stick in a particular decision. 

Through a case following Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, we can see how a certain interpretation rises above the rest. In Bruen, the State of New York requires a person to provide a “special need” for self-protection in order to receive an unrestricted license for a concealed firearm outside of a home. This law was challenged on the ground of violating the Second Amendment. In a 6-3 decision the Court held that the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and there was no constitutional evidence advocating a “special need” was needed in order to exercise this right. They later go even further and state that gun regulations would only be valid if there were a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history. 

We can notice historical practices, textualism, and national identity all blending together in the Court’s opinion. This said, the decision was not as open and shut as it first would appear. In this very same decision, the Court upheld regulations that ban firearms in “sensitive places”, violating the very same textualism that allowed for concepts not present in the Constitution to be struck down. The ability showcased here, to weigh certain interpretations and the consequences of them, comes with prudence. While the other interpretations tend to struggle with the implications of standing on its own in decisions, prudence has no such difficulties. In this particular case, although there is never a written statement that regulations on firearms are constitutional, the Court is able to use prudence to consider the welfare of society and draft an opinion benefiting the majority of the population.  

Looking even further beyond, we can see a clear conflict of juggling interpretations in the fairly recent case of United States v. Rahimi. Rahimi was a convicted felon with a special order preventing him from possessing firearms due to his previous acts of violence with firearms. After being charged with possession of firearms, he argued his Second Amendment rights. Often in cases of heightened complexity, interpretations can blend and fight amongst one another. In this particular case we can see almost all of them taking sides against each other.

Textualism, original meaning, historical practices and structuralism all point towards acquiring Rahimi, with there being no explicit verbiage visible in the amendment, nor in history and between the branches, stating his right to possess a firearm could be revoked. Judicial precedent could also fall this way, with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen being mentioned as a possible defense. Moral reasoning and national identity both sit on the fence in this case, with possible argumentation coming from both sides. Questions arise from both of them, such as the moral implications of a felon convicted of assault being able to possess firearms. This is countered by the argument that the U.S. is the land of the free, whether every individual should be given the right to defend themselves. Putting aside the subjective philosophy that often comes with moral reasoning, national identity can also be used from either stance, with the United States history of firearm rights contrasting the notion of a safe and secure nation. In a situation like this the solution we have to against rely on Prudence. 

In situations such as these, prudence gets a chance to shine. For the plain text of the Constitution would be stifling and overbearing, with no exceptions for the most bare necessities without it. Being able to leverage all of the different, often opposing, interpretations against each other and triangulate the best option for society can shift seemingly impossible cases such as these and end them in overwhelming 8-1 decisions. 

Renowned Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo once wrote, "The final cause of law is the welfare of society", this is the principle of Prudence, what is best for all. 

Juan Elizondo-Alvarez is a sophomore majoring in finance and accounting.

Sources

Claxton, Joseph E. "Cardozo: A Study in Reputation. By Richard A. Posner," Mercer Law Review Vol. 42, no. 4(1991).

"District of Columbia v. Heller." Oyez. Accessed February 28, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

"New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen." Oyez. Accessed February 28, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843

U.S. Const. amend. II. 

"United States v. Rahimi." Oyez. Accessed February 28, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915