A Question for Eric

Slate's blog on legal issues.
March 18 2008 7:51 PM

A Question for Eric

Eric, if I understand your post , you argue that constitutional rights should only be recognized where they would help to prevent the political party in power from "entrench[ing] itself and undermin[ing] political competition" -- in other words, to help correct a political process failure.

Well, that's one reason why the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, in particular) establishes certain rights, but it's certainly not the only, or the predominant, reason.  (Think of the various ends served by the Bill of Attainder Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy, the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, etc.) 

Advertisement

So, let's say that Justice Kennedy were correct, and the Second Amendment was, indeed, ratified in order to protect "the right of people living in the wilderness [which apparently includes much of D.C.] to protect themselves" -- the right of "the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."  (Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.)

Now, I don't think this is a very plausible reading of the Second Amendment; but let's assume that it were (as the Court appears prepared to hold -- when Kennedy settles on a particular story about constitutional value or settlement, he's usually difficult to move off it, cf. Alden v. Maine ).  Why wouldn't, or shouldn't, that right be cognizable?  Is your argument simply that constitution writers should not create rights except to protect against political entrenchment?  If so, I suppose that's one theory of what (minimalist) constitutions ought to be about -- but what does it have to do with interpreting ours, which is designed to protect against other forms of government overreaching, too?

(In your post, you suggest that a right of self-defense would "come into conflict with mynatural right to protect myself by disarming criminals," a conflictthat "can only sensibly be resolved through political compromise."  But in order for there to be such a conflict between constitutional or natural rights here, the Court would have to recognize, not a right to "protect myself by disarming criminals," but instead a right to have

the state

protect me by disarming criminals.  And on this (and any other imaginable) Court, that proposition has no support at all.  Cf.

DeShaney

.)


TODAY IN SLATE

Frame Game

Hard Knocks

I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.

Chief Justice John Roberts Says $1,000 Can’t Buy Influence in Congress. Looks Like He’s Wrong.

After This Merger, One Company Could Control One-Third of the Planet's Beer Sales

Hidden Messages in Corporate Logos

If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter

Sports Nut

Giving Up on Goodell

How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.

How Can We Investigate Potential Dangers of Fracking Without Being Alarmist?

My Year as an Abortion Doula       

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 16 2014 9:22 AM The Most Populist Campaign of 2014
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 15 2014 7:27 PM Could IUDs Be the Next Great Weapon in the Battle Against Poverty?
  Life
Atlas Obscura
Sept. 16 2014 8:00 AM The Wall Street Bombing: Low-Tech Terrorism in Prohibition-era New York
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Tv Club
Sept. 15 2014 11:38 AM The Slate Doctor Who Podcast: Episode 4  A spoiler-filled discussion of "Listen."
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 9:13 AM Clive James, Terminally Ill, Has Written an Exquisitely Resigned Farewell Poem
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 7:36 AM The Inspiration Drought Why our science fiction needs new dreams.
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 16 2014 7:30 AM A Galaxy of Tatooines
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.