Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160589
 
 

Footnotes (142)



 


 



Unfaithful to Textualism


Jeffrey P. Kaplan


San Diego State University

June 15, 2012


Abstract:     
Linguistic analysis is applied to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This one-sentence amendment has a syntactic structure comprising an “absolute” (a non-tensed propositional modifier of a main clause) which conditions the speech act embodied in the main clause. Because the absolute’s proposition (“A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state”) is false, the main clause speech act (prohibition of infringement of the right to keep and bear arms) is unsupported, giving rise to a hard problem: what the Amendment says it does, it doesn’t do, but being law, it does. The linguistic analysis in the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)), authored by Justice Scalia, is analyzed. The analysis shows that Scalia covertly abandoned his own prominently and energetically advocated textualist program. A faithful application of textualism would have resulted in a different outcome in the case.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 75

Keywords: Second Amendment, Heller, Scalia, textualism, originalism

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 11, 2012 ; Last revised: October 13, 2012

Suggested Citation

Kaplan, Jeffrey P., Unfaithful to Textualism (June 15, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160589 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160589

Contact Information

Jeffrey P. Kaplan (Contact Author)
San Diego State University ( email )
San Diego, CA 92182-0763
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 598
Downloads: 173
Download Rank: 99,542
Footnotes:  142

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.343 seconds