Footnotes (129)



Unfaithful to Textualism

Jeffrey P. Kaplan

San Diego State University

June 15, 2012

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

Open PDF in Browser 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: https://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: 811
Downloads: 197
Download Rank: 121,081
Footnotes:  129