Justice Breyer’s Sharp Aim
By PAULINE MAIER
NYT
Cambridge, Mass.
WHILE the federal judge who ruled that portions of the health care reform law were unconstitutional made the big headlines, another important constitutional debate was reopened last week by Justice Stephen Breyer during an interview on Fox. He argued that the historical record — in particular, James Madison’s thoughts and writings — supports the dissenters in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment established an individual right to bear arms, and on that basis struck down a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
Conservatives were quick to accuse Justice Breyer of pursuing an activist judicial agenda. Their charges are misguided.
The dissents — written by Justices Breyer and John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — held that the Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” as part of a “well-regulated militia,” but not an absolute individual right to own a gun. And if there is no constitutional right at issue, gun regulation should be set by elected legislatures and local governments, not the courts. That’s not “activist.”
Indeed, contrary to what many Second-Amendment absolutists suggest, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller did not preclude all regulations of firearms, only those that amounted to a prohibition on ownership or prevented their use in the home for self-defense.
(More here.)
NYT
Cambridge, Mass.
WHILE the federal judge who ruled that portions of the health care reform law were unconstitutional made the big headlines, another important constitutional debate was reopened last week by Justice Stephen Breyer during an interview on Fox. He argued that the historical record — in particular, James Madison’s thoughts and writings — supports the dissenters in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment established an individual right to bear arms, and on that basis struck down a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
Conservatives were quick to accuse Justice Breyer of pursuing an activist judicial agenda. Their charges are misguided.
The dissents — written by Justices Breyer and John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — held that the Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” as part of a “well-regulated militia,” but not an absolute individual right to own a gun. And if there is no constitutional right at issue, gun regulation should be set by elected legislatures and local governments, not the courts. That’s not “activist.”
Indeed, contrary to what many Second-Amendment absolutists suggest, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller did not preclude all regulations of firearms, only those that amounted to a prohibition on ownership or prevented their use in the home for self-defense.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home