Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?

Nelson Lund nlund at gmu.edu
Tue Feb 9 14:56:54 PST 2010


Indeed.  Moreover, there is internal evidence in the /Heller/ majority 
opinion suggesting that its author (or authors) did not read all of the 
material it cited (or, at least, if there were multiple authors, that 
they didn't all read everything that their co-authors cited). There is 
even evidence that the author(s) did not read the most relevant 
precedent, /United States v. Miller/.

Nelson Lund
George Mason

Marc R Poirier wrote:
>
> To cite a law review is not necessarily to have read or understood it.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Marc R. Poirier
>
> Professor of Law and Martha Traylor Research Scholar
>
> Seton Hall University School of Law
>
> One Newark Center
>
> Newark, NJ 07102 - 5210
>
> 973-642-8478 (w)
>
> 201-259-0896 (c )
>
>  
>
> Someone has to sow the seed so that sanity can happen on this earth.  
> -- Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Sanford Levinson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:51 PM
> *To:* Christopher Green; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?
>
>  
>
> I don't mean to pick on Prof. Green, but I'm not sure this is true, 
> either.  I think there's some empirical research that shows that 
> contemporary justices are ever less likely to cite law reviews or, 
> even more to the point, genuinely discuss any argument (and nuance) 
> that might be present in a law review article.  Perhaps I am wrong, 
> though...
>
>  
>
> sandy
>
>  
>
> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Christopher 
> Green
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:41 PM
> *To:* CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?
>
>  
>
> Perhaps should've said "reads & cites a lot of law reviews" rather 
> than "takes scholarship seriously."
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Sanford Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:32 PM
> *To:* Christopher Green; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?
>
> I cannot agree that Heller demonstrated "that the Court takes 
> scholarship seriously."  Neither Scalia nor Stevens bothered to 
> confront the most serious scholarly studies of the Second Amendment 
> that might have complexified their equally tendentious arguments.  
> Where was any discussion, e.g., of the superb book by Uviller and 
> Merkel (which cuts against Stevens) or Saul Cornell's book (which cuts 
> against Scalia by arguing that the Second Amendment was not intended 
> to constitutionalize the common law right of self-defense), not to 
> mention the intellectual scandal of Scalia's ipse dixit announcement 
> that the right of self-defense apparently doesn't apply to Martha 
> Stewart (convicted of a felony that is malum prohibitum and in no way 
> involved an act of violence).  "An originalist judge with a pragmatic 
> streak" sounds like a walking incoherence.  And, of course, there's 
> the little problem (though perhaps not to the contemporary Republican 
> Party) that the p-or-I clauses seems to refer to the rights of 
> "citizens" and not of "persons" (though this does reinforce the rising 
> nativism, from all sides of the political spectrum, that is frantic 
> about the possibility that a "foreign corporation" might, with full 
> disclosure, actually take out an ad with regard to a political 
> candidate). 
>
>  
>
> sandy
>
>  
>
> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Christopher 
> Green
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:11 PM
> *To:* CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?
>
>  
>
> I think a lot of it is intellectual honesty--the historical arguments 
> for SDP are much weaker than P/I as a protection for fundamental 
> rights.  Cases like Heller show that the Court takes scholarship 
> seriously, I think.  Also, the SDP cases have always operated, I 
> think, in a bit of a P/I shadow--cases like Palko, Allheyer, and 
> Holden talk prominently about "privileges" and "immunities," for 
> instance.  Developing the P/I argument is, I think, a good way of 
> persuading an originalist judge with a pragmatic streak (like Scala, 
> but maybe Roberts and Alito) to go along with SDP incorporation 
> because it (a) fits with precedents, and (b) fits with the original 
> history, albeit for a different clause.  It always seemed to me that 
> the incorporation cases of the 1960s would never have been as 
> uncontroversial as they were if it weren't for Black's 
> Howard-on-P/I-based Adamson dissent.  Gura also presumably knew that 
> the NRA was presenting a SDP argument at length in their McDonald brief.
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Lichtman, Steven
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:40 PM
> *To:* CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?
>
> Robert Barnes had an interesting artice in yesterday's Washington Post 
> about the strategy of the petitioner in the upcoming 2nd Amendment 
> case, McDonald v. Chicago.  Evidently, Alan Gura is basing his 
> arguments against Chicago's gun ban mainly on the theory that the 2nd 
> Amendment is incorporated to the states via the *Privileges or 
> Immunities Clause *(though there is a cursory argument based on the 
> Due Process Clause).  Barnes states that Gura thinks this is the best 
> way to proceed in the case, though he does not quote Gura directly on 
> this point.
>
>  
>
> Sure enough, in his brief, Gura is asking directly for the Court to 
> overrule Slaughter-House and Cruikshank.  The brief is a pretty good 
> treatment of the history of the P-Or-I Clause; if my students had 
> submitted it as a research project, I'd have given them an A.
>
>  
>
> But as constitutional lawyering?
>
>  
>
> I cannot fathom why Gura, who is trying to win the case, would 
> structure his argument like this.  I suppose he could be assuming that 
> he's going to win the case (I certainly am), and figuring that as long 
> as he's got it in the bag let's try for something bigger.  Even so, 
> are there any indications that the Roberts Court is going to be 
> receptive to a P-Or-I argument?  Wouldn't such an argument, if 
> successful, be the kind of body blow to state power that Roberts et 
> al. are not usually inclined to deliver?
>
>  
>
> Steven Lichtman
>
> Shippensburg University
>
>  
>
>  
>
> P.S.: Links ...
>
>  
>
> Barnes' article:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020702401.html
>
>  
>
> Gura's brief:
>
> http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_Petitionernew.pdf
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ________________________
>
> Dr. Steven Lichtman
>
> Assistant Professor and Pre-Law Advisor
>
> Department of Political Science - 413 Grove Hall
>
> Shippensburg University
>
> 1871 Old Main Drive
>
> Shippensburg, PA  17257
>
> (717) 477-1845
>
> http://webspace.ship.edu/SBLichtman/lichtman.htm
>
>  
>
>  
>
> .
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100209/15c8acfe/attachment.htm>


More information about the Conlawprof mailing list