The difficulty is that the proponents of “strict construction” (and others) have rarely advocated a thorough-going literalism. That approach would, for example, mean that the First Amendment to the Constitution applies only to Congress (and not to the states, the executive, or to common-law doctrines). Other provisions of the Constitution don’t seem to have any determinate literal meaning—the due process clause, the privileges and immunities clause, and the republican form of government clause come to mind.
Still wonderin’ how come that 2A don’t apply only to militias?
From the Legal Theory Lexicon:
The difficulty is that the proponents of “strict construction” (and others) have rarely advocated a thorough-going literalism. That approach would, for example, mean that the First Amendment to the Constitution applies only to Congress (and not to the states, the executive, or to common-law doctrines). Other provisions of the Constitution don’t seem to have any determinate literal meaning—the due process clause, the privileges and immunities clause, and the republican form of government clause come to mind.
Still wonderin’ how come that 2A don’t apply only to militias?