Mon - November 26, 2007How the Second Amendment Would be Defined by BrennanIn law school we get to see how famous judges
make their decisions by going through the most tortured logic imagineable. This
is often lauded by professors and students, but not always. Some professors are
quite principled and most at least acknowlege that an argument is at least
partially insane. This does not stop the decision from becoming
law.
So, since Justice Brennan is dead and because I particularly detest every word he has ever written, I'm assigning his name for no other reason to this parody. The second Amendment says, 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. Brennan, J.
The Second Amendment has a contentious history in our nation. The precise meaning of the words is much debated, mostly as to whether the word "people" entails an individual right or a collective right. It's important that we take the clear meaning of the words into account. This court has held in innumerable cases that the word "people" in the Constitution refers to individuals in every other instance. The individual right to keep and bear arms is thus strongly supported by the use of this term. We hold that it does indeed apply to individual rights to keep and bear arms. But that is not the end of the argument. We must further inquire into what it means to "keep and bear arms." Again, the words have some ambiguity. Websters defines "arms" with several meanings, but the most prominent meaning is "the upper limb of the human body." Clearly the writers of the Constitution intended for us to not have our upper limbs taken from our bodies. This is not the usual interpretation of the Second Amendment, but historical context confirms this meaning. After centuries of England using the punishment of drawing and quartering, the nascent American government wanted to ensure that such practices were condemned. Militias require men with arms, their upper limbs. A militia threatened with removal of their limbs would be so demoralized as to be ineffective and not well regulated. We thus hold that the second amendment is indeed an individual right, but not a right concerning guns. It is a right to be free of barbaric punishments that remove a person's limbs. Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents | |