DOCSLIB.ORG

Short Circuit 174

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Short Circuit 174 Short Circuit 174 Anthony Sanders 00:06 Hello, and welcome to Short Circuit your podcast on the Federal Courts of Appeals. I'm your host Anthony Sanders, Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice. If you enjoy this podcast, you should check out our newsletter and often an irreverent take on certain Court of Appeals opinions, which we publish every Friday, you can subscribe at shortcircuit.org or find it on the Volokh Conspiracy Blog. And please check out our sister podcast, the documentary series, Bound by Oath. We're recording this Thursday, May 20, 2021. And we are very pleased to be bringing you a special short circuit with a special guest, David Kopel is a familiar name to many of our listeners. He is a man who wears many impressive hats. A research director of the Independence Institute, associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute, adjunct professor of law at Denver University Strunk College of Law, longtime blogger with our friends at the Volokh Conspiracy, which is probably how many listeners know him, and perhaps most importantly, a fiercely proud Coloradoan. Over the years in which I've looked for cool headed, deeply informed, and rational discussion on gun issues in the Second Amendment. David has always been the first voice I've turned to. So, it made a lot of sense to have him on Short Circuit now that the issue of the Second Amendment in the form of the right to carry is now not only back before the Supreme Court in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett, but also still bubbling along in the court of appeals with the case Young v. Hawaii that the Ninth Circuit recently decided. David is going to help us sort out what the Supreme Court is looking at with the New York case, what's the simmering relevance of the Ninth Circuit's case, the underlying issues the court is looking at and what we might expect from the court when it rules next term. So, David, thank you so much for joining us on Short Circuit. David Kopel 02:00 I'm happy to be here. And I love your weekly newsletter, it is a fantastic resource. Anthony Sanders 02:07 Thank thanks so much. It's a lot of fun to write. And it's even more fun, I know, for our readers to listen, sorry, to read. So, I'm going to assume our listeners know about the case, Heller v. District of Columbia from 2008, which said the Second Amendment protects a right to have a firearm in one's home. But the - 1 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai question which the follow up case, in the follow up case, mostly left open, was how does that right extend beyond the home. And that's what these latest cases, of course, are addressing. So before we get to the constitutional issues, though, and all the relevant history, maybe let's get started with a couple terms we're going to hear a lot about over the next year, if you haven't already: concealed carry, and open carry. The cases we'll be discussing concern whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home. But sometimes that's in the context of concealed carry, sometimes open carry. So, for someone like me who really doesn't know much about guns, why is there a distinction often in the law between conceal and open carry, apart from the obvious of exactly what they mean? So, if you're a responsible gun owner, why would you prefer one versus the other? And why is that they so often differently regulated? David Kopel 3:30 The tradition of different regulation starts in approximately in 1813 or so in a couple of states, like Kentucky and Indiana, which had state constitutional right arms protections in their own state constitutions, as well as, at the very least caring about the spirit of the Second Amendment. And those state legislatures banned concealed carry only while allowing open carry. The Kentucky Supreme Court said you can't do that. The Indiana Supreme Court said you could in a one sentence opinion. And over the course of the 19th Century, the dominant approach of the state courts was to uphold concealed carry restrictions, as long as open carry was available. Their view was you've certainly got the right to bear arms from your state constitution, but the legislature can regulate the mode of how you do so. A different approach would be which would be more purely originalist would say well as of 1776, or, most importantly 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified by the states and the people, no state, restricted, open versus concealed carry, they just left that choice up to the individual Anthony Sanders 05:00 And if you're a gun owner in a state where? Yeah, this might be a basic question. But if you're a gun owner in a state that say has both, which is a lot of states these days, what why might you pick open carry versus concealed carried, if you're in crowded environment? Concealed carry is just a safer bet or it's less alarming? What's the reason why people pick one or the other? David Kopel 05:22 there are good reasons for both. So, exactly, if you live in an area with a bunch of hoplophobes, that that's actually something that is an identified mental disorder. Just like any kind of phobia can be a mental disorder, you know, arachnophobia, you're afraid of spiders, all those things. And some people - 2 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai just get freaked out and don't like seeing a gun no matter how peaceful the circumstances. So maybe out of protecting their sensibilities you deal with concealed carry, or for whatever other reason, you just don't want to have that be a visible thing. On the other hand, open carry for the individual is a more visible deterrent. So, if you're walking down the street, and you want to make sure the criminal who's watching people come by and you know, from, say, from an alleyway, who am I going to mug, and he sees you walk by with a gun in a holster on your belt? He says, I'll skip that guy. Anthony Sanders 06:30 I see. David Kopel 06:31 And it can be depending on the situation, it can be in an emergency, it can be faster to access the firearm, if it's open carry. Anthony Sanders 06:40 Now, the case that the Supreme Court has taken is a case concerning concealed carry. And I believe that's because in New York State, you can apply for a concealed carry permit, although it's hard to get, but there just is no open carry. David Kopel 06:57 That's right. So that's correct. Anthony Sanders 07:00 So what's the genesis of that case? And one interesting thing I found about that case is the Second Circuit's opinion is two pages, which usually doesn't make for epic Supreme Court appeals. But in this case, there's some background there. So, tell us a bit about that. Sure. So, after District of Columbia vs. Heller was decided in 2008. And then, the follow up case, McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010. Would said the 14th amendment makes the Second Amendment right to arms enforceable against state and local governments. Challenges began coming up in the now fairly small minority of states that don't respect the right to bear arms. In 42 states as a statewide matter, you can get a concealed carry permit. If you are a law-abiding adult who can pass a background check and a safety training class. And you've offered the background check is more intense than just to buy a gun, that the buying a gun in a store is a kind of a name, and Id check where you show your driver's license, a concealed carry permit would be more likely to require fingerprinting, and several weeks or more to process those fingerprints against - 3 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai the various databases. But there's a minority of states and New York is one of them, where the right to bear arms is not respected. In some counties in New York. They do respect the right and will issue a permit to somebody after a proper background checking and maybe a little investigation. In others, such as New York City, you only get one if you're a celebrity, or maybe a security guard or a, you know, let's say a diamond merchant, or a doctor who's carrying narcotics while making house calls. So New York State like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, in California, and actually Delaware to some extent to is pretty variable. Whether you can get a permit or not depends a lot on the county you live in other jurisdictions, namely Hawaii, and New Jersey and Maryland, somewhat, are much more restrictive. And just as a statewide matter, you can in essence, almost never get a permit. In New Jersey, even if you were a diamond merchant, who had been robbed six times in the past 15 years, they still wouldn't give you a permit because you wouldn't be able to say well, there's some specific guy I know who's going to try to rob me.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: the Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2017 Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: The Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism Ken Levy Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Repository Citation Levy, Ken, "Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: The Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism" (2017). Journal Articles. 413. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/413 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: Ken Levy, Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: The Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism, 21 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 45 (2017) Provided by: LSU Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Fri Mar 16 15:53:01 2018 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device WHY THE LATE JUSTICE SCALIA WAS WRONG: THE FALLACIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL TEXTUALISM by Ken Levy * The late justice Scalia emphatically rejected the notion that there is a general "right to privacy" in the Constitution, despite the many cases that have held otherwise over the past several decades.
    [Show full text]
  • The Alchemy of Dissent
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2010 The Alchemy of Dissent Jamal Greene Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jamal Greene, The Alchemy of Dissent, 45 TULSA L. REV. 703 (2010). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/942 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ALCHEMY OF DISSENT Jamal Greene* Stephen M. Feldman, Free Expression and Democracy in America: A History (U. Chi. Press 2008). Pp. 544. $55.00. On July 10, 2010, the Orange/Sullivan County NY 912 Tea Party organized a "Freedom from Tyranny" rally in the sleepy exurb of Middletown, New York. Via the group's online Meetup page, anyone who was "sick of the madness in Washington" and prepared to "[d]efend our freedom from Tyranny" was asked to gather on the grass next to the local Perkins restaurant and Super 8 motel for the afternoon rally.1 Protesters were encouraged to bring their lawn chairs for the picnic and fireworks to follow. There was a time when I would have found an afternoon picnic a surprising response to "Tyranny," but I have since come to expect it. The Tea Party movement that has grown so exponentially in recent years is shrouded in irony.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping The
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 25 (2016-2017) Issue 1 Article 7 October 2016 Justice Scalia’s Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law Meghan J. Ryan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Courts Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Meghan J. Ryan, Justice Scalia’s Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law, 25 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 297 (2016), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol25/iss1/7 Copyright c 2016 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj JUSTICE SCALIA’S BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO SHAPING THE LAW Meghan J. Ryan * ABSTRACT Justice Antonin Scalia is among the most famous Supreme Court Justices in history. He is known for his originalism and conservative positions, as well as his witty and acerbic legal opinions. One of the reasons Justice Scalia’s opinions are so memorable is his effective use of rhetorical devices, which convey colorful images and understandable ideas. One might expect that such powerful opinions would be effective in shaping the law, but Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy was often too conservative to persuade a majority of his fellow Justices on the Supreme Court. Fur- ther, his regular criticisms of his Supreme Court colleagues were not conducive to building majority support for his reasoning. Hoping to still have a lasting impact on the law, Justice Scalia seemed to direct his rhetoric at a different audience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett
    The Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett What’s at Stake? The Separation of Church and State A report from Americans United for Separation of Church and State September 26, 2020 INTRODUCTION Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom—a tradition and ideal that remains central to who we are today. The separation of church and state is the linchpin of religious freedom and one of the hallmarks of American democracy. It ensures that every American is able to practice their religion or no religion at all, without government interference, as long as they do not harm others. It also means that our government officials, including our judges, can’t favor or disfavor religion or impose their personal religious beliefs on the law. Separation safeguards both religion and government by ensuring that one institution does not control the other, allowing religious diversity in America to flourish. Our Supreme Court must respect this fundamental principle. The American people agree: According to a poll conducted in July of 2019 by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research on behalf of Americans United, 60 percent of likely voters say protecting the separation of religion and government is either one of the most important issues to them personally or very important. Justice Ginsburg was a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state. Yet President Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett, whose record indicates hostility toward church-state separation, to fill her seat. Religious freedom for all Americans hangs in the balance with this nomination. AT STAKE: Whether Religious Exemptions Will Be Used to Harm Others, Undermine Nondiscrimination Laws, and Deny Access to Healthcare Religious freedom is a shield that protects religion, not a sword to harm others or to discriminate.
    [Show full text]
  • How Star Wars Illuminates Constitutional Law
    HOW STAR WARS ILLUMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW † CASS R. SUNSTEIN ABSTRACT: Human beings often see coherence and planned design when neither exists. This is so in movies, literature, history, economics, and psychoanalysis – and constitutional law. Contrary to the repeated claims of George Lucas, its principal author, the Star Wars series was hardly planned in advance; it involved a great deal of improvisation and surprise, even to Lucas himself. Serendipity and happenstance, sometimes in the forms of eruptions of new thinking, play a pervasive and overlooked role in the creative imagination, certainly in single authored works, and even more in multi-authored ones extending over time. Serendipity imposes serious demands on the search for coherence in art, literature, history, and law. That search leads many people (including Lucas) to misdescribe the nature of their own creativity and authorship. The misdescription appears to respond to a serious human need for sense-making and pattern-finding, but it is a significant obstacle to understanding and critical reflection. Whether Jedi or Sith, many authors of constitutional law are a lot like the author of Star Wars, disguising the essential nature of their own creative processes. KEYWORDS: Serendipity; Judicial Interpretation; Supreme Court; Chain Novel; Originalism. RESUMO: Os seres humanos frequentemente identificam coerência e planejamento quando nenhum desses elementos sequer existe. Tal situação ocorre nos filmes, na Literatura, na História, na Economia e na † Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard University. For valuable comments, I am grateful to Tyler Cowen, Elizabeth Emens, George Loewenstein, Martha Nussbaum, Eric Posner, Mark Tushnet, Adrian Vermeule, and Duncan Watts. This essay draws heavily on an earlier and less academic essay, originally published in The New Rambler (2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Originalist Or Original: the Difficulties of Reconciling Citizens United with Corporate Law History Leo E
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 91 | Issue 3 Article 1 4-2016 Originalist or Original: The Difficulties of Reconciling Citizens United with Corporate Law History Leo E. Strine Jr. Delaware Supreme Court Nicholas Walter Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 91 Notre Dame L. Rev. 877 (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\91-3\NDL301.txt unknown Seq: 1 4-APR-16 13:24 ARTICLES ORIGINALIST OR ORIGINAL: THE DIFFICULTIES OF RECONCILING CITIZENS UNITED WITH CORPORATE LAW HISTORY Leo E. Strine, Jr.* & Nicholas Walter** INTRODUCTION Much has and will continue to be written about the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.1 In that decision, the Court held that the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the © 2016 Leo E. Strine, Jr. & Nicholas Walter. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice. * Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court; Adjunct Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Austin Wakeman Scott Lecturer, Harvard Law School; Senior Fellow, Harvard Program on Corporate Governance; Adjunct Professor, Vanderbilt University School of Law; Henry Crown Fellow, Aspen Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • WHAT's the POINT of ORIGINALISM? As of Late, a Remarkable Array of Constitutional Theorists Have Declared Themselves Originali
    WHAT’S THE POINT OF ORIGINALISM? DONALD L. DRAKEMAN* I. EMBRACING ORIGINALISM As of late, a remarkable array of constitutional theorists have declared themselves originalists of one sort or another,1 and no one is quite sure why.2 Or, perhaps more accurately, everyone is sure, but they all disagree with each other. For some, the originalism command springs directly from the text itself: it is a written Constitution, and the original meaning of the text itself is the law of the land;3 for others, such as Justice Scalia, it is the best (and perhaps only) way to restrain judges from reading * Ph.D., Princeton University, 1988; J.D., Columbia Law School, 1979; A.B., Dartmouth College, 1975. Visiting Fellow, Program on Church, State & Society, Notre Dame Law School; and Fellow in Health Management, University of Cam- bridge. I would like to thank Joel Alicea, David Campbell, Marc DeGirolami, Richard Ekins, Matthew Franck, Mark Movsesian, Phillip Muñoz, Keith Whitting- ton, Brad Wilson, the fellows of the James Madison Program in American Ideas and Institutions at Princeton University, and the Notre Dame Law School Faculty Colloquium for very helpful comments, and Michael Breidenbach for excellent research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies. 1. See generally Thomas B. Colby & Peter J. Smith, Living Originalism, 59 DUKE L.J. 239 (2009); see also Jeffrey Shulman, The Siren Song of History: Originalism and the Religion Clauses, 27 J.L. & RELIGION 163 (2011) (book review). For a discussion of modern originalism, see Joel Alicea, Forty Years of Originalism, 173 POL’Y REV. 69 (2012) and JACK M.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism: Lessons from Things That Go Without Saying Robert William Bennett Northwestern University School of Law, [email protected]
    Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Working Papers 2008 Originalism: Lessons From Things That Go Without Saying Robert William Bennett Northwestern University School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation Bennett, Robert William, "Originalism: Lessons From Things That Go Without Saying" (2008). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 169. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/169 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. NATHANIEL L. NATHANSON MEMORIAL LECTURE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW SCHOOL March 11, 2008 ORIGINALISM: LESSONS FROM THINGS THAT GO WITHOUT SAYING By Robert W. Bennett1 It is a very special honor to present these Nathanson lectures, and not simply for the obvious reason that I was asked to join a very distinguished list of Nathanson lecturers. I also have fond recollections of an earlier visit to the school–now more than twenty-five years ago, and I am an admirer of the work of several members of the San Diego faculty that intersects in various ways with my own. But most of all Nat Nathanson, after whom the lectures are named, was a dear friend and colleague at Northwestern–and also a hero of mine–for many years. The colleague relationship spanned twenty-four years, and the friendship came easily, and continues with Leah Nathanson who is well-known to you folks in San Diego, and who is here with us today.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Amendment and “The People”: Who Has the Right to Bear Arms?
    The John Marshall Law Review Volume 51 | Issue 1 Article 8 2017 The econdS Amendment and “The eopleP ”: Who Has the Right to Bear Arms?, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 199 (2017) Kasim Carbide Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.jmls.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kasim Carbide, The eS cond Amendment and “The eP ople”: Who Has the Right to Bear Arms?, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 199 (2017) https://repository.jmls.edu/lawreview/vol51/iss1/8 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by The oJ hn Marshall Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The oJ hn Marshall Law Review by an authorized administrator of The oJ hn Marshall Institutional Repository. THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND “THE PEOPLE”: WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? KASIM CARBIDE I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 199 A. The Current Problem .............................................. 199 B. Brief Overview ......................................................... 202 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................. 203 A. Incorporation ........................................................... 203 B. Originalism v. Nonoriginalism ............................... 204 C. History of Second Amendment Jurisprudence ...... 205 III. ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 210 A. The Supreme Court’s Reasoning ............................ 210 B. The Seventh Circuit’s Reasoning ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party and the Constitution, 39 Hastings Const
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 39 Article 3 Number 1 Fall 2011 1-1-2011 The eT a Party and the Constitution Christopher W. Schmidt Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Christopher W. Schmidt, The Tea Party and the Constitution, 39 Hastings Const. L.Q. 193 (2011). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol39/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Tea Party and the Constitution by CHRISTOPHER W. SCHMIDT* We are dedicated to educating, motivating, and activating our fellow citizens, using the power of the values, ideals, and tenets of our Founding Fathers. -Hartford Tea Party Patriots,Mission Statement' Introduction Just about everyone in the United States professes to love the Constitution. But the Tea Party really loves the Constitution. To an extent that sets it apart from any major social movement of recent memory, the Tea Party has turned to the nation's founding document as the foundation stone of a campaign designed to right the direction of a country believed to have gone astray. Whereas the usual pattern in modern American history has been for the Constitution only to intrude upon the popular consciousness in response to some clearly "constitutional" event-most typically a controversial Supreme Court opinion, occasionally something rarer like a presidential impeachment-today we are in the midst of a national debate over the meaning of the Constitution instigated by a grassroots social movement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sacrifice of the New Originalism
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2011 The Sacrifice of the New Originalism Thomas Colby George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas B. Colby, The Sacrifice of the New Originalism, 99 Geo. L.J. 713 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Sacrifice of the New Originalism THOMAS B. COLBY* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 714 I. THE EMERGENCE OF THE NEW ORIGINALISM .................. 716 A. FROM ORIGINAL INTENT TO ORIGINAL MEANING ............. 720 B. FROM SUBJECTIVE MEANING TO OBJECTIVE MEANING ......... 722 C. FROM ACTUAL TO HYPOTHETICAL UNDERSTANDING ........... 724 D. EMBRACING STANDARDS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES .......... 724 E. EMBRACING BROADER LEVELS OF GENERALITY .............. 726 F. FROM ORIGINAL EXPECTED APPLICATION TO ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES ..................................... 728 G. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION . 731 H. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN NORMATIVE AND SEMANTIC ORIGINALISM .................................... 735 II. THE BENEFITS OF THE NEW ORIGINALISM .................... 736 III. THE COST OF THE NEW ORIGINALISM ....................... 744 A. THE INEVITABLE MARRIAGE OF SOPHISTICATION AND FLEXIBILITY . 746 B. THE PROFOUND FLEXIBILITY OF THE NEW ORIGINALISM ........ 749 IV. OF SUBSTANCE AND SEMANTICS .......................... 764 A. FIXED AND CHANGING MEANINGS ....................... 765 B. INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION ................... 766 V. ORIGINALIST RESPONSES ............................... 769 A. ARTICULATING NARROW THEORIES OF CONSTRUCTION ......... 770 B. DECLINING TO ENDORSE THE FULL NEW ORIGINALIST PACKAGE ..
    [Show full text]
  • Rescuing Burke
    Missouri Law Review Volume 72 Issue 2 Spring 2007 Article 1 Spring 2007 Rescuing Burke Carl T. Bogus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Carl T. Bogus, Rescuing Burke, 72 MO. L. REV. (2007) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol72/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bogus: Bogus: Rescuing Burke MISSOURI LAW REVIEW VOLUME 72 SPRING 2007 NUMBER 2 Rescuing Burke Carl T. Bogus* I. INTRODUCTION Edmund Burke needs to be rescued. His legacy is held hostage by the modem conservative movement, which proclaims Burke to be its intellectual progenitor. Conservatives consider Burke the fountainhead of their political philosophy - the great thinker and eloquent eighteenth-century British statesman who provides conservatism with a distinguished heritage and a coherent body of thought. Burke has achieved iconic status; Reaganites wore his silhouette on their neckties.' Legal scholars applaud court decisions and jurisprudential philosophies as Burkean, or denounce them as not being genu- inely Burkean. But Burke's memory has been wrongfully appropriated. Ed- mund Burke was a liberal - at least by today's standards - and it is time to restore him to his proper home. This Article has three objectives. The first is to demonstrate Burke's lib- eralism.
    [Show full text]