Heller as Hubris, and How McDonald v. City of Chicago May Well Change the Constitutional World as We Know It
William G. Merkel
Charleston School of Law
May 13, 2010
Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2010
This article critiques the jurisprudential philosophy underlying Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court for the first time enforced a private right to weapons possession under the Second Amendment. The article anticipates the likely incorporation of that newly minted right against the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case heard by the Supreme Court in the spring of 2010, and argues that the original understanding of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments cannot easily be reconciled with a judicially enforceable right to weapons possession unrelated to service in the lawfully established militia. In the process, the article calls into question glib popular and judicial assumptions believed to legitimize judicial review, and suggests that judicial veto of legislatively determined policy choices requires a far more cogent theoretical foundation than that provided by Justice Scalia’s fetishistic and idolatrous adherence to caricatured visions of an “original public meaning” that allegedly held sway when constitutional text was proposed and ratified.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 41
Keywords: constitutional interpretation, constitutionalism, bill of rights, Second Amendment, incorporation, Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, guns, original meaning, original intent, Scalia, Privileges and Immunities, substantive due process, Civil War and Reconstruction, Fourteenth AmendmentAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 14, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.312 seconds