« Keeping up with the corrections crisis news in California | Main | Solitary confinement panel at Stanford Law School's public interest conference »

October 7, 2009

"Does the Second Amendment Bind the States?"

The title of this post is the headline of this effective column at FindLaw by Professor Michael Dorf.  This piece is one of the most effective discussion of the complex and interesting precedents at issue in the Second Amendment incorporation case taken up by the Supreme Court last week.  Here is a paragraph from the start of the commentary:

Last week, the Court announced that it would hear a case, McDonald v. Chicago, posing the question whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and their sub-divisions. In lawyer's jargon, McDonald requires the Court to say whether the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the Second Amendment against the states.  As I shall explain in this column, the case poses an intellectual challenge for the Justices who were in the Heller majority.  To see why, we will need to begin by reviewing the story of how other constitutional rights came to be incorporated against the states.

Some related Second Amendment posts:

October 7, 2009 at 01:11 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a5ca0c65970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Does the Second Amendment Bind the States?":

» Blog Scan from Crime and Consequences Blog
Binding States to the Second Amendment: Thanks to Doug Berman for posting a link to Michael Dorf's Findlaw article asking "Does the Second Amendment Bind the States?" In his post, Dorf discusses the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller,... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2009 6:35:07 PM

Comments

Or, the Justices could leapfrog over modern incorporation jurisprudence altogether and go back to the original Congressional, state legislative, and popular debates about what exactly the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause, was supposed to accomplish.

There was not a sane sober person anywhere in the Union in 1868 who did not fully understand that the Fourteenth Amendment was unambiguously intended to, inter alia, give freed blacks the right to bear arms. They might not have liked the idea, but they understood it.

Posted by: KipEsquire | Oct 8, 2009 11:15:55 AM

hid was up with youe hair today, looks like a bouffant

Posted by: barrack obama | Dec 31, 2009 1:08:18 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB