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.

scholarly journals The Department of Justice’s Position on the Second Amendment: Advancing the Nation’s Interest or Putting the Nation at Risk?

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Ray
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Limited Government ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Nation At Risk ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Militias

In the United States, there has been fierce debate over the Second Amendment and the scope of the right that it protects. Pro-gun enthusiasts as well as some academics and historians have fervently argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. Subscribing to the “individual rights” view, they argue that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to possess and use firearms for any purpose, subject only to limited government regulation. On the other side of the debate are gun control advocates, other academics and scholars who believe that the Second Amendment only protects the right to bear arms when related to a wellregulated state militia. Their view can be characterized as the “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. This group believes that the Second Amendment protects the people’s right to maintain effective state militias, but does not afford any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.

The Creation of a “True Antient and Indubitable” Right: The English Bill of Rights and the Right to Be Armed

1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce Lee Malcolm
Keyword(s):  
New Right ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The People ◽  
Conservative Revolution ◽  
Single Flower ◽  
The Creation ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The seventh of the thirteen “ancient and indubitable” rights proclaimed in the English Declaration of Rights was neither ancient nor indubitable. It declared “that the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by Law.” The right of ordinary subjects to possess weapons is perhaps the most extraordinary and least understood of English liberties. It lies at the heart of the relationship between the individual and his fellows and between the individual and his government. Few governments have ever been prepared to make such a guarantee, and, until 1689, no English parliamentary body was either. Its elevation that year to the company of ancient and indubitable rights unmasked the deep-seated distrust between the governing classes and the crown. Together with the equally novel article that gave Parliament greater control over standing armies, this right was meant to place the sword in the hands of Protestant Englishmen and the power over it in the hands of Parliament.The actual novelty of this right had eluded historians for a variety of reasons. First, its framers were taken at their word when they described it as ancient and indubitable. Indeed, Whig historians preferred to believe there had been a conservative revolution. Thomas Macaulay rejoiced that “not a single flower of the crown was touched. Not a single new right was given to the people. The whole English law, substantive and adjective, was, in the judgment of all the greatest lawyers … almost exactly the same after the Revolution as before it.

scholarly journals فلاحی ریاست میں عہدہ داروں کے چناؤکا معیار

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (- 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abzahir Khan ◽  
Muhammad Ayub
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
The State ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Related Article ◽  
The People ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Masses

State is the basic requisite of any coordinated and civilized nation. The state must exist for maintaining harmony, adherence to law and mutual relationship within a nation. Each and every nation has undergone diverse experiences with respect to the state. However, the approach of a welfare state is found is the present day era. The approach of such a welfare state guarantees all the individual and collective rights of a nation. The main focus of a welfare state is human and humanities. All its potentials have to ensure the survival, safety of human beings and safeguarding his life, property and honor.         A welfare state holds various institutions which for the good and welfare of the masses. in order to run various administrator bodies, it requires competent and skilled persons. These persons and individuals should be equipped with integrity, power to work, moderations, competence, skill and experience in the concern faculty, so that they may put the institutions on the right direction and the people could benefit always.  In the perspective of the related article the standard of selecting office bearers in a welfare state has been dealt with.

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.

Visualizing genealogy through a family-centric perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Ball
Keyword(s):  
Family Relationships ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Temporal Context ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
The Past ◽  
Future Behavior ◽  
The People ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Genealogy is a way to tell a story. Stories tell us who we are, where we came from, and are a foundation for future behavior. Genealogical visualizations are used to help understand and share the story of the past with others. Modern research for genealogy emphasizes the stories of families and communities. However, most genealogical visualizations are focused on the individual and have a number of limitations including not giving accurate stories of families and timelines. This article presents a temporal family-centric visualization paradigm that focuses on families and communities. It is unique in that it shows all the family relationships of individuals while at the same time putting the people into a correct historical and temporal context. In addition, it shows where temporal information is missing and uses heuristics to place people in approximately the right time frame. The new paradigm allows people to understand their stories of their families and the communities that they came from in order to create a whole story with context and details.

The Dynamic Free Speech Clause

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Zick
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Relational Dynamics ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Common ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speech Clause

This book examines the relational dynamics between the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and other constitutional rights. The free speech guarantee has intersected with a variety of other constitutional rights. Those intersections have significantly influenced the recognition, scope, and meaning of rights ranging from freedom of the press to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They have also influenced interpretation of the Free Speech Clause itself. Free speech principles and doctrines have facilitated the recognition and effective exercise of constitutional rights, including equal protection, the right to abortion, and the free exercise of religion. They have also provided mediating principles for constructive debates about constitutional rights. At the same time, in its interactions with other constitutional rights, the Free Speech Clause has also been a complicating force. It has dominated rights discourse and subordinated or supplanted free press, assembly, petition, and free exercise rights. Currently, courts and commentators are fashioning the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the image of the Free Speech Clause. Borrowing the Free Speech Clause for this purpose may turn out to be detrimental for both rights. The book examines the common and distinctive dynamics that have brought free speech and other constitutional rights together. It assesses the products and consequences of these intersections, and draws important lessons from them about constitutional rights and constitutional liberty. Ultimately, the book defends a pluralistic conception of constitutional rights that seeks to leverage the power of the Free Speech Clause but also to tame its propensity to subordinate, supplant, and eclipse other constitutional rights.

From Property Rights to Liberty Rights: We the Corporations, A Review Essay

2021 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-340
Author(s):  
Laura Phillips Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
State Action ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
We The People

A long-standing, and deeply controversial, question in constitutional law is whether or not the Constitution's protections for “persons” and “people” extend to corporations. Law professor Adam Winkler's We the Corporations chronicles the most important legal battles launched by corporations to “win their constitutional rights,” by which he means both civil rights against discriminatory state action and civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (p. xvii). Today, we think of the former as the right to be free from unequal treatment, often protected by statutory laws, and the latter as liberties that affect the ability to live one's life fully, such as the freedom of religion, speech, or association. The vim in Winkler's argument is that the court blurred this distinction when it applied liberty rights to nonprofit corporations and then, through a series of twentieth-century rulings, corporations were able to advance greater claims to liberty rights. Ultimately, those liberty rights have been employed to strike down significant bipartisan regulations, such as campaign finance laws, which were intended to advance democratic participation in the political process. At its core, this book asks, to what extent do “we the people” rule corporations and to what extent do they rule us?

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.

Open Democracy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélène Landemore
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Democratic Representation ◽  
The People ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
The Right ◽  
Turn Over ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

To the ancient Greeks, democracy meant gathering in public and debating laws set by a randomly selected assembly of several hundred citizens. To the Icelandic Vikings, democracy meant meeting every summer in a field to discuss issues until consensus was reached. Our contemporary representative democracies are very different. Modern parliaments are gated and guarded, and it seems as if only certain people — with the right suit, accent, wealth, and connections — are welcome. Diagnosing what is wrong with representative government and aiming to recover some of the lost openness of ancient democracies, this book presents a new paradigm of democracy in which power is genuinely accessible to ordinary citizens. This book favors the ideal of “representing and being represented in turn” over direct-democracy approaches. Supporting a fresh nonelectoral understanding of democratic representation, the book recommends centering political institutions around the “open mini-public” — a large, jury-like body of randomly selected citizens gathered to define laws and policies for the polity, in connection with the larger public. It also defends five institutional principles as the foundations of an open democracy: participatory rights, deliberation, the majoritarian principle, democratic representation, and transparency. The book demonstrates that placing ordinary citizens, rather than elites, at the heart of democratic power is not only the true meaning of a government of, by, and for the people, but also feasible and, today more than ever, urgently needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document