Joseph Filco has taught economics and American government and writes commentary for the Williamsburg Gazette. He is relatively well-versed, and while I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I often write my response here because both the Williamsburg Gazette and the Daily Press routinely refuse to print opposing discourse.
In his recent article dated February 10, 2024, Filco raises an important constitutional question: Did our Founding Fathers intend to elevate material needs into rights, or did they envision a system of ordered liberty and limited government whose proper function was to protect the rights of self-reliant people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Democrats, he notes, often point to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to justify federal taxation in the name of the “general welfare.” But what, precisely, is the general welfare?
In my view, the general welfare is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution as written — such as providing for national defense or maintaining a standing army — not the provision of welfare benefits, food assistance, or federalized school funding for individuals. Those responsibilities were intended to rest primarily with the states, not the federal government.
Democracy is explained, the Constitution evaluated — yet one critical omission stands out: the Second Amendment.
Filco’s article is thoughtful, though simplified for a general audience — which may be necessary, given that many Americans no longer understand that we are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers were deeply skeptical of direct democracy, which they understood as rule by majority passion rather than reasoned law. This is why they established safeguards such as the Electoral College — a system now routinely criticized by modern Democrats, some of whom still claim an election was “stolen” because the popular vote did not prevail. One must ask whether rejecting a lawful constitutional outcome is truly respect for democracy at all.
The Second Amendment remains one of the most debated provisions of our Constitution. Passed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights, it is often described as a single sentence open to interpretation. But is it?
When examining historical grammar, we find that the Founders frequently employed long, comma-separated sentences — a common structure in 18th-century English. Modern readers often misinterpret this structure by applying contemporary grammatical assumptions. When parsed correctly, the Second Amendment does not condition the right to bear arms solely on militia service. Rather, it recognizes multiple related principles: the existence of a militia, the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the command that such rights shall not be infringed.
I raised this grammatical and historical interpretation with a constitutional officer in the James City County Police Department during my participation in the Citizens Police Academy. This officer, trained to advise other officers on constitutional matters, agreed with the interpretation.
Yet modern liberals continue to argue for disarming the individual citizen, a trend we see clearly today in the Virginia General Assembly. At the same time, these same legislators often reject meaningful sentencing reforms that would deter violent crime — such as enhanced penalties for using firearms in the commission of crimes. The focus is placed on restricting lawful ownership rather than punishing unlawful use.
This inconsistency reflects a broader pattern. Modern Democratic leadership increasingly favors centralized federal authority when it advances their policy goals, yet invokes states’ rights when federal law becomes inconvenient. Immigration policy provides a clear example: states are told they may not enforce federal border laws, while the federal government selectively declines to enforce those same laws itself. Marijuana policy reveals the same contradiction. Although cannabis remains illegal under federal statute, Democrats routinely defend state legalization in the name of autonomy. This is not principled federalism — it is convenience-driven governance.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court clarified the Second Amendment in 2008, affirming that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms — a right some on the political left continue to resist.
January 6 is frequently cited as evidence of a threat to democracy. Yet, like the “mostly peaceful” protests of 2020, it was a mass political demonstration in which the overwhelming majority of participants were nonviolent. In both cases, isolated criminal acts occurred — and those individuals should be prosecuted as individuals. What is troubling is the selective application of collective guilt. Entire movements are condemned or excused depending not on conduct, but on political alignment.
The people’s power has undeniably diminished over time, as the federal government has expanded into nearly every aspect of daily life — often choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The Civil War settled the question of federal supremacy over state law, which is why the federal government sued Texas for attempting to enforce federal border statutes. Yet selective enforcement undermines the very legitimacy such supremacy requires.
Peaceful protest should not become a crime simply because it reaches the steps of power. Nor should riots that burn cities be excused because they align with approved narratives. A constitutional republic survives only when laws are applied equally, rights are protected individually, and liberty is not conditioned on political favor.
