Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | My Orble | Login

The Rationale Quest - Philosophy and Religion latent state challenged in global economic arena

 
Philosophy and Religion latent state is challenged and explored in the global economic arena. Suffering and Healing Prayer part of the Religon section. Some posts are not necessarily the view of Tapsearch Com Editor and Artist Ray Tapajna

Defending my defense of the Parker dissent

March 14th 2007 03:27
John Tabin has an interesting post about my Spectator article. His point:

"The argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC because the District is not a state is completely implausible, at least from an originalist perspective. The 'security of a free State' language was understood at the time of ratification to mean 'security of a free country' -- as Eugene Volokh notes, it's a formulation that comes from Blackstone's Commentaries. Blackstone used 'state' as a synonym for 'nation,' and so did the Framers; the word 'state' is used in that sense in several places elsewhere in the constitution, in reference to 'foreign state[s].' And remember that when the constitution was written, the US included the Northwest Territory; does it really make sense to think that the Framers would deliberately deny rights to Americans in that region?"

My response: Great analysis from the stated "originalist perspective." Problem is, that interpretation was not on the table for the Parker court. Lower courts are bound by precedent, and US v. Miller unquestionably interpreted the Second Amendment language to refer to "State" as in "the 50 states," not as in "country":

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress."

Note "States," plural. Miller also cited the Constitution itself, when it details how the Militia functions. In this section, the Framers used "States" the way Miller interpreted the Second Amendment:

"...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Now, all this doesn't mean the Second Amendment meant "State" the same way, and I'm inclined to agree with Tabin and Volokh that the amendment should apply to the whole country. But within the limits of precedent, I maintain my thesis that the Parker dissent was far less anti-gun than it could have been.

By Robert VerBruggen

36
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   

   

   


Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Notify extra people about this comment
Is this a private comment?
List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment


One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.


One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
3 Posts
4 Posts
426 Posts dating from December 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Tapsearch Com Editor's Blogs

5374 Vote(s)
52 Comment(s)
91 Post(s)
10064 Vote(s)
105 Comment(s)
176 Post(s)
5968 Vote(s)
124 Comment(s)
103 Post(s)
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]