Carrying Guns in Public: Legal and Public Health Implications

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. 84-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon S. Vernick
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
State Militias ◽  
The U.S

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Until recently, no federal appellate court had ever struck down any gun law as a violation of the Second Amendment. In fact, even laws outlawing most handgun possession, or restricting other types of firearms, had been upheld, in part, because the laws did not interfere with the functioning of state militias.Then, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court — for the first time in nearly 70 years — decided a case squarely addressing the meaning of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own handguns in the home, invalidating a Washington, D.C. law.But Heller left many issues undecided, including the precise scope of the Second Amendment.

scholarly journals Living or Dead? Specifics of the Language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Izabela Kraśnicka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Language Interpretation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
American Legal System ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

Abstract The original text of the Constitution of the United States of America, written over 200 years ago, constitutes the supreme source of law in the American legal system. The seven articles and twenty seven amendments dictate understanding of fundamental principles of the federation’s functioning and its citizens’ rights. The paper aims to present the evolution of the U.S. Constitution’s language interpretation as provided by its final interpreter - the Supreme Court of the United States. Example of the Second Amendment will be analyzed to present the change in understanding of the language grammar and, as a consequence, the sense of the right to keep and bear arms in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of District of Columbia v Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)). It will argue for the accuracy of statement of Charles Evans Hughes, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”

The Case for Repealing the Second Amendment? The Historical Barriers to Constitutional Change

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-607
Author(s):  
David T. Konig
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Popular Constitutionalism

The controversy surrounding the Second Amendment—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”—is, to a large extent, historical in nature, redolent of other matters in this country’s legal and constitutional past. But the historical analogies that might support the Amendment’s repeal do not permit easy conclusions. The issue demands that legal historians venture beyond familiar territory to confront unavoidable problems at the intersection of theory and practice and of constitutional law and popular constitutionalism. An interdisciplinary analysis of Lichtman’s Repeal the Second Amendment illuminates the political, legal, and constitutional dimensions—as well as the perils—of undertaking the arduous amending process permitted by Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The Pakistan Federal Shariat Court, Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, and the Orphaned Grandchild

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Personal Law ◽  
Law Of Succession ◽  
Muslim Family

AbstractSection 4 of the Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, dramatically altered the law of succession applicable to Muslims by granting to the orphaned grandchild(ren) the share that their deceased parent would have taken had s/he survived the propositus. The principle of representation incorporated in the Pakistani solution contrasts with the compulsory bequest relied upon by several Middle Eastern countries to deal with the same problem, although arguably representation more closely reflects the experience and expectations of the people of Pakistan. Nearly two decades later, the Federal Shariat Court was established and endowed with jurisdiction to declare a law contrary to "the Injunctions of Islam" and thus void. Some laws, however, were specifically exempted from the Court's jurisdiction; falling within this category is "Muslim Personal Law." A 1981 decision of the appellate Court (the Shariat Bench of the Supreme Court) held that the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance were included within the phrase "Muslim Personal Law," and were thus outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. This position was reversed by another decision of the appellate Court in 1993, and the provisions of the Ordinance were immediately challenged on the basis of their alleged divergence from the "Injunctions of Islam." This essay reviews the provisions of section 4 of the Ordinance and examines the decision of the Shariat Court as regards this particular provision.

The Company They Keep

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Baum ◽  
Neal Devins
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Dominant Ideology ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The U.S

Today’s ideological division on the U.S. Supreme Court is also a partisan division: all the Court’s liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents, all its conservatives by Republican presidents. That pattern never existed in the Court until 2010, and this book focuses on how it came about and why it’s likely to continue. Its explanation lies in the growing level of political polarization over the last several decades. One effect of polarization is that potential nominees will reflect the dominant ideology of the president’s political party. Correspondingly, the sharpened ideological division between the two political parties has given presidents stronger incentives to give high priority to ideological considerations. In addition to these well-known effects of polarization, The Company They Keep explores what social psychologists have taught us about people’s motivations. Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological elites, and justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live in milieus populated by like-minded elites that reinforce their liberalism or conservatism during their tenure on the Supreme Court. By highlighting and documenting this development, the book provides a new perspective on the Court and its justices.

Legislative Department

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The State ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The People ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
The U.S

This chapter assesses Article V of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns the legislative department. Section 1 states that “the Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” However, “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature.” Section 2 provides for the designation and definition of reserved powers. Initiative means the power of the people to propose bills, and to enact or reject them at the polls. Referendum is the right of the people to have bills passed by the legislature submitted to the voters for their approval. Meanwhile, in May 1964, the Oklahoma constitution was amended to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The amendment passed and Sections 9 through 16 were replaced with Sections 9A through 11E. The chapter then details the provisions for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

scholarly journals Feu la D.C.D. L'arrêt Miller et la peine de mort

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 567-576
Author(s):  
Henri Brun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

The Miller case, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 5, 1976, puts the death penalty under the light of the Canadian Bill of Rights which formulates the right to life and the right to protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The following comment on the case relates to the interpretation given specific clauses of the Bill of Rights by the Court on that occasion. But it stresses especially the law that flows from the case about the compelling weight of the Bill of Rights over acts of Parliament enacted after the Bill came into force. In Miller, the Supreme Court expressed itself on the subject for the first time.

The Courts Begin to Appreciate Gay Rights: Romer and Baehr, 1996

2021 ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
State Court ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 6 describes two important breakthroughs in the courts for gay rights. In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Romer v. Evans in favor of gay plaintiffs from Colorado who had had their rights reduced by a voter referendum. The Supreme Court upheld state court rulings which had overturned the referendum. The Romer decision, written by Anthony Kennedy, was the first Supreme Court decision to affirmatively defend the rights of gay people. In the fall of 1996 in Hawaii a same-sex marriage trial, Baehr v. Miike, showed for the first time that the opponents of marriage equality had no scientific or empirical basis for preventing same-sex marriages from being recognized. The marriage plaintiffs won in court, but the voters of Hawaii reinstated the same-sex marriage ban. Hawaii did not become a marriage equality state until 2013.

Under the Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Educational Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The right to an education is guaranteed by international law in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, UNESCO’s Constitution sets out the right to an education as necessary to “prepare the children of the world for the responsibilities of freedom.” No such right is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, though. Perhaps Congress or the Supreme Court would be sympathetic, however, to an argument for educational rights based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the rights of citizenship.

scholarly journals Comentario de los autos del Tribunal Supremo de 17 de octubre y 6 y 27 de noviembre de 2014, relativos a la ley de consultas populares y la «consulta popular no referendaria sobre el futuro político de Cataluña»

2016 ◽  
pp. 595
Author(s):  
Estela Gilbaja Cabrero
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

El Parlamento catalán aprobó en 2014 una Ley de consultas populares. Anteriormente, en 2013, había aprobado una Declaración de soberanía y del derecho a decidir del pueblo de Cataluña. Basándose en los citados documentos, el Presidente de la Generalitat convocó una «consulta popular no referendaria sobre el futuro político de Cataluña», que tendría lugar el 9 de noviembre de 2014. No se llegó a celebrar porque el Tribunal Constitucional decretó su suspensión, ya que el Gobierno había impugnado ante él la Ley, la Declaración y el Decreto de Convocatoria. La Generalitat, una asociación y dos particulares entendieron que los recursos del Gobierno fueron una intromisión en los derechos de los catalanes y acudieron al Tribunal Supremo. El presente trabajo estudia los Autos del Tribunal Supremo que les dan respuesta.Catalan Parliament approved in 2014 a Popular Enquiry Act. Previously, in 2013, they had approved a Declaration of Sovereignty and the right to decide of the people of Catalonia. Based on these documents, the President of the regional Government called to a «non-referendum popular enquiry about the political future of Catalonia», which would be held on November 9, 2014. It did not get to celebrate because the Constitutional Court ordered its suspension, as the central Government had impugned the Act, the Declaration and the Decree calling for the enquiry. The regional Government, an association and two people thought those impugnations were an intrusion on the Catalans’ rights and went before the Supreme Court. This paper studies the reply of the Supreme Court.

A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saul Cornell
Keyword(s):  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Militias

Second Amendment scholarship has become mired in an intellectual quagmire. Contemporary debate over this provision of the Bill of Rights has been cast in terms of a simple dichotomy: either the Second Amendment protects an expansive individual right similar in nature to freedom of the press or it protects a narrow right of the states to maintain a well-regulated militia. Partisans of the individual rights view argue that the Second Amendment was designed to affirm a basic individual right to own firearms for hunting, recreation, and personal protection. The other view of the amendment, often described as the collective rights view, argues that the amendment was about the allocation of military power in the federal system. According to this view, the Second Amendment was a modest concession to moderate Antifederalists who feared the power of the new federal government. By affirming the right of the people to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia, Federalists assuaged lingering Antifederalist qualms about the future of the state militias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document