DOCSLIB.ORG

The Second Amendment and the Constitutional Right to Self-Defense William G. Merkel Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Second Amendment and the Constitutional Right to Self-Defense William G. Merkel Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ The Second Amendment and the Constitutional Right to Self-Defense William G. Merkel Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law in the School of Law COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2013 William G. Merkel All rights reserved Chapters Two and Five reprinted from Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1E. © 2009 Gale, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions. The text in Chapters Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve appeared previously as indicated in the Table of Contents. By the terms of the publication contracts and the policies of the publishers, the author, William G. Merkel, retains the right to reuse and republish all of that material in this dissertation. Written confirmation of those rights as acknowledged by the publishers are on file with the author. ABSTRACT The Second Amendment and the Constitutional Right to Self-Defense William G. Merkel This dissertation analyzes the contextual background, drafting history, text, original understanding, interpretive evolution, and contemporary judicial application of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The dissertation develops the argument that as originally understood, the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms closely linked to and dependent upon service in the lawfully established militia. Two recent United States Supreme Court decisions, Heller v. District of Columbia and MacDonald v. City of Chicago, depart from this original understanding and recognize a constitutional right to weapons possession for purposes of purely private self- defense – particularly self-defense in the home. The dissertation recognizes that there are grounds for recognizing such a right, and that these include natural law, substantive due process, procedural due process, the Ninth Amendment, and emanations from particular provisions in the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment. At the same time, the dissertation develops the case that the original public understanding mode of interpretation avowedly applied by the Supreme Court in its recent right to arms decisions relies on untenable “law office” history to justify results not dictated by the text, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution or by prior Supreme Court precedent. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 The Constitutional Right to Self-Defense and Self-Defense in International Law: Reflections on Deadly Drones, Trayvon Martin, and Matters yet to be Decided by the Supreme Court CHAPTER 2 ……………………………………………………………………………… 41 The Second Amendment originally appeared in 4 MACMILLAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 354 (2008) CHAPTER 3 ……………………………………………………………………………… 50 Mandatory Gun Ownership, the Militia Census of 1806, and Background Assumptions Centering the Early American Right of Arms: A Cautious Response to Robert Churchill originally appeared in 25 LAW AND HISTORY REVIEW 187 (2007) CHAPTER 4 ……………………………………………………………………………… 62 A Cultural Turn: Reflections on Recent Historical and Legal Writing on the Second Amendment originally appeared in 17 STANFORD LAW AND POLICY REVIEW 671 (2006) CHAPTER 5 ……………………………………………………………………………… 101 Raising Armies originally appeared in 4 MACMILLAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 169 (2008) CHAPTER 6 ……………………………………………………………………………… 106 Responding to Randy Barnett Critique previously unpublished excerpts submitted as part of The Authors’ Reply to Commentaries on, and Criticisms of, The Militia and the Right to Arms, or How the Second Amendment Fell Silent which appeared in 12 WILLIAM AND MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL 357 (2004) CHAPTER 7 ……………………………………………………………………………… 120 Book Review: Saul Cornell, A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America originally appeared in 112 AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW 842 (2007) i CHAPTER 8 ……………………………………………………………………………… 124 Book Review: Stephen P. Halbrook, The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms originally appeared in 114 AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW 1074 (2009) CHAPTER 9 ……………………………………………………………………………… 128 The District of Columbia v. Heller originally appeared in 1 GUNS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORY, POLITICS, CULTURE, AND THE LAW 233 (2012) CHAPTER 10 ……………………………………………………………………………. 140 The District of Columbia v. Heller and Antonin Scalia’s Perverse Sense of Originalism originally appeared in 13 LEWIS AND CLARK LAW REVIEW 349 (2009) CHAPTER 11 …………………………………………………………………………….. 184 Heller as Hubris, and How McDonald v. City of Chicago May Well Change the Constitutional World as We Know It originally appeared in 50 SANTA CLARA LAW REVIEW 1221 (2010) CHAPTER 12 …………………………………………………………………………….. 228 McDonald v. City of Chicago originally appeared in 2 GUNS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORY, POLITICS, CULTURE, AND THE LAW 541 (2012) ii Acknowledgements Many wonderful and wonderfully learned and intelligent people have helped enormously as this Dissertation came into shape and rounded into its final form. Not all of them are named here, and no slight is intended to those inadvertently omitted. Those whose special assistance and insights particularly merit recognition include my long time mentor, the late Professor H. Richard Uviller, my J.S.D. advisor, Professor George P. Fletcher, the other members of my Committee, Professor Robert Ferguson and Professor Michael Dorf, my old Constitutional Law Professor, the late Louis Henkin, my Columbia Law School Associates in Law class mates (now all Professors) Joshua Fairfield, Christie Lee Ford, Alana Klein, and Hoi Kong, my historical mentors, Professor Daniel Walker Howe and the late Duncan MacLeod, my long time colleagues Professors Bill Rich, Alex Glashausser, Ali Khan, Michael Kaye, and Jeffrey Jackson, my provocative and learned friend Professor Greg Gordon, my thoughtful interlocutor at the University of South Carolina, Professor Pat Hubbard, and the wonderful research librarians at Columbia Law School, Oxford University, the International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, Washburn Law School, the University of North Dakota School of Law University of South Carolina School of Law, and the Charleston School of Law. Special thanks are also due to wonderful student research assistants including Aimee Betzen, Larry Crow, Matthew Dunavan, Madison Hamile, Brian Lindquist, Reanne Utemark, Sara Salehi, and Whitney Wilder, and to the participants at faculty, junior faculty, and graduate symposia at Oxford University, the University of Kansas, Washburn Law School, and Washington University St. Louis, among others. The constant support and patient assistance of Professor Saul Cornell, surely among the leading serious historians of the Second Amendment, has been invaluable. At the other end of the spectrum, frequent critical but eminently civil encounters with Stephen P. Halbrook, one of the leading proponents of a Second Amendment embracing a private right to self- defense, have forced me to refine my argument at every turn. iii Dedication For my loving and beloved parents, George and Nancy Merkel, and for the ladies in my life, Gayle Goudy and little Clara Merkel. iv 1 CHAPTER ONE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE AND SELF-DEFENSE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: REFLECTIONS ON THE STATE OF NATURE, DEADLY DRONES, TRAYVON MARTIN, AND SOME UNSETTLED LEGAL QUESTIONS It is a long-established axiom among political theorists that when people leave the state of nature and enter into civil society, they accept the enforcement of limitations against some of their rights so as to protect and indeed maximize other personal and collective rights—including the right to security—to the greatest extent possible.1 In modern constitutional democracies, it is 1 This proposition was central to the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and William Blackstone, three of the English-speaking world’s foundational thinkers on governmental legitimacy. Thus, in endeavoring to convince his readers to accept the authority of the English Commonwealth after the execution of Charles I, Hobbes writes “[f]rom this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace.” THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN, Ch. XIV sec. 5, (1651), at 86 in Oxford World’s Classic Edition (1996) (1651). According to Locke’s SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT, written either to encourage overthrow of the government of James II in 1685 or to justify the newly established constitutional settlement after the Glorious Revolution in 1689, “wherever, therefore, any number of men so unite into one society as to quit every one his executive power of the law of Nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society. And this is done wherever any number of men, in the state
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Joyce Foundation Betraying Donor Intent in the Windy City
    Stopping Juvenile Detention: The Joyce Foundation Betraying donor intent in the Windy City By Jonathan Hanen Summary : The Joyce Foundation’s en- dowment came from David Joyce, a lum- ber magnate who believed in the American system of free enterprise. Today the foun- dation that lives off his wealth is a hotbed of trendy, left-wing thinking and grant- making. It funds efforts to hurt the lumber industry, turn schools into union-controlled sources of Democratic Party patronage, block Americans’ gun rights, and constrict economic freedoms. Barack Obama sat on its board from 1994 to 2002, and directed the foundation’s money to causes Joyce al- most certainly would not have favored. he Joyce Foundation, based in Chicago, Illinois, was founded in T1948 by Beatrice Joyce Kean, the Leftist Ellen Alberding runs the Joyce Foundation. sole heir to the Joyce family fortune. The Joyces of Clinton, Iowa, originally made by the end of his life he was “a stockholder gave him the ownership of several plants.” their money in the lumber industry. The in twelve different sawmill plants located Joyce was “prominent in public enterprises patriarch who created the Joyce fortune was in all sections of the country, one within and contributed large amounts to various the great nineteenth-century entrepreneur eighteen miles of Lake Superior at the North religious institutions and was a subscriber David Joyce (died 1904). Of “old New and another within eighty miles of the Gulf to society and educational work.” England Puritan stock,” he was “strong, of Mexico in the South, while still another bold and resourceful.” “He was one of the was on Puget Sound.” “Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfaction of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO PUBLIC CATHOLICISM AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN AMERICA: THE ADAPTATION OF A RELIGIOUS CULTURE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF DIVERSITY, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology by Michael J. Agliardo, SJ Committee in charge: Professor Richard Madsen, Chair Professor John H. Evans Professor David Pellow Professor Joel Robbins Professor Gershon Shafir 2008 Copyright Michael J. Agliardo, SJ, 2008 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Michael Joseph Agliardo is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2008 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents......................................................................................................................iv List Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................vi List of Graphs ......................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. viii Vita.............................................................................................................................................x
    [Show full text]
  • The Joyce Foundation 2004 Annual Report a Teacher Affects Eternity; He Can Never Tell Where His Influence Stops
    The Joyce Foundation 2004 Annual Report A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops. Henry Adams 8 President’s Letter 10 Education 44 Employment 45 Environment 46 Gun Violence 47 Money and Politics 48 Culture 49 Grants Approved 65 Financial Statements 73 2005 Program Guidelines 48 Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, America’s schools still fail to provide many poor and minority children with a quality education. 2 3 A big part of the problem: poor and minority children are much more likely than other children to have teachers who are inexperienced, uncertified, or teaching subjects they were not trained to teach. 4 5 Yet hope exists: over time, effective teachers can erase the achievement gap and help kids learn. 6 7 In each of the Foundation’s programs, our priorities are shaped by what the research identifies as the most effective strategies to address social challenges. Our goal is to identify and promote evidence-based public policies that will improve the lives of Midwest citizens. The Foundation’s board has identified six broad categories of issues that have an impact on our region: education, the environment, employment, gun violence, money and politics, and culture. When determining what to fund within these categories, we consider the president’s letter severity of a problem, our ability to identify a possible solution, and the likelihood that our resources can make Among the central challenges facing our nation today is how to provide high-quality education and a difference. The projects that we fund almost always include some of the following: training to the next generation of adults.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Dates
    Nevada Dentists, The compiled information is to inform you of pertinent information for the November 2020 election. You may have wondered which legislators are friends of dentistry and which legislators have helped to promote dentistry in Nevada. The information is not intended to be partisan, but rather a guide to inform dentists of the candidates and their past voting record. Find my Legislator/District Need to Register to Vote or Update your Existing Voter Registration? Important Dates: General Election: November 3, 2020 Register to Vote: Mail: Postmarked by October 6, 2020 Online: October 29, 2020 In-Person: October 6, 2020 Early Voting: October 17, 2020 - October 30, 2020 Absentee Ballot: Request: October 20, 2020 Return: Postmarked by November 3, 2020 1 Senate Bill 366/SB366 which established provisions to dental therapy: AN ACT relating to dental care; establishing the profession of dental therapy governed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Nevada; revising provisions relating to dentistry and dental hygiene; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Additional Information: • Senator Julia Ratti sponsored SB366. • SB366 was referred to the Nevada Committee on Commerce and Labor and could have been defeated with a simple majority vote by this committee. o Senator Pat Spearman, Chair o Senator Marilyn Dondero Loop o Vice Chair Senator Nicole J. Cannizzaro o Senator Chris Brooks o Senator Joseph P. Hardy o Senator James A. Settelmeyer- VOTED AGAINST DENTAL THERAPY o Senator Heidi Seevers Gansert 2 SB366 Voting Record Nevada Assembly Supporte Opposed Distri Up for Financial Encyclopedi Biography Locatio d SB366 SB366 ct Re-election a n FollowTheMon Ballotpedi VoteSma Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Glittering Generalilties and Historic Myths, Brandeis School of Law
    For further information contact: EMBARGOED until 7:30 p.m. (E.D.T.) Public Information Office (202) 479-3211 April 18, 2013 JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS (Ret.) UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE BRANDEIS SCHOOL OF LAW 2013 Brandeis Medal Recipient The Seelbach Hilton Louisville, Kentucky April 18, 2013 Glittering Generalities and Historic Myths When I began the study of constitutional law at Northwestern in the fall of 1945, my professor was Nathaniel Nathanson, a former law clerk for Justice Brandeis. Because he asked us so many questions and rarely provided us with answers, we referred to the class as "Nat's mystery hour." I do, however, vividly remember his advice to "beware of glittering generalities." That advice was consistent with his former boss's approach to the adjudication of constitutional issues that he summarized in his separate opinion in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936). In that opinion Justice Brandeis described several rules that the court had devised to avoid the unnecessary decision of constitutional questions. As I explained in the first portion of my long dissent in the Citizens United case three years ago, the application of the Brandeis approach to constitutional adjudication would have avoided the dramatic changes in the law produced by that decision. I remain persuaded that the case was wrongly decided and that it has done more harm than good. Today, however, instead of repeating arguments in my lengthy dissent, I shall briefly comment on the glittering generality announced in the per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 that has become the centerpiece of the Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, and then suggest that in addition to being skeptical about glittering generalities, we must also beware of historical myths.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2017 Nevada Legislative Session Review & Report Card
    The 2017 Nevada Legislative Session Review & Report Card by Daniel Honchariw Nevada Policy Research Institute 1 Composite Scores Nevada Legislature 40.66% Assembly 38.78% Senate 44.06% Democrats 15.37% Republicans 82.34% Assembly Democrats 14.89% Assembly Republicans 83.30% Senate Democrats 16.44% Senate Republicans 80.90% Gov. Sandoval*** 74.92% Individual Legislative Scores Rank Legislator Party Chamber Score 1 Robin Titus R Assembly 92.96% 2 Jim Marchant R Assembly 90.28% 3 Donald Gustavson R Senate 90.18% 4 Ira Hansen R Assembly 88.17% 5 Lisa Krasner R Assembly 86.39% 6 John Ellison R Assembly 86.38% 7 Richard McArthur R Assembly 85.83% 8 John Hambrick R Assembly 85.45% 9 Michael Roberson R Senate 82.69% 10 Jim Wheeler R Assembly 82.56% 11 Ben Kieckhefer*** R Senate 82.43% 12 Keith Pickard R Assembly 81.97% 13 Al Kramer R Assembly 81.66% 14 Chris Edwards R Assembly 81.39% 15 James Settelmeyer R Senate 80.62% 24 16 Pete Goicoechea R Senate 80.47% 17 Joseph Hardy R Senate 79.84% 18 Paul Anderson R Assembly 79.53% 19 Scott Hammond R Senate 79.36% 20 Heidi Gansert*** R Senate 77.95% 21 Jill Tolles R Assembly 77.50% 22 James Oscarson R Assembly 75.83% 23 Melissa Woodbury R Assembly 75.29% 24 Becky Harris*** R Senate 74.42% 25 Nicole Cannizzaro D Senate 20.67% 26 Skip Daly D Assembly 20.00% 27 Maggie Carlton D Assembly 18.89% 28 Patricia Farley I Senate 18.60% 29 Sandra Jauregui D Assembly 16.39% 29 William McCurdy II D Assembly 16.39% 29 Daniele Monroe-Moreno D Assembly 16.39% 29 Justin Watkins D Assembly 16.39% 33 Steve Yeager D Assembly
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement of Hannah C. Smith Senior Counsel, Becket
    Written Statement of Hannah C. Smith Senior Counsel, Becket Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “The State of Religious Liberty in America” February 16, 2017 * * * * * Chairman King, Ranking Member Cohen, and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation and opportunity to offer testimony at today’s hearing on “The State of Religious Liberty in America.” My name is Hannah Smith, and I am Senior Counsel at Becket, a non- profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty for people of all faiths. At Becket, we have defended Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. We have litigated several cases before the United States Supreme Court, all of which have resulted in favorable decisions, including the Little Sisters of the Poor in Zubik v. Burwell,1 Holt v. Hobbs,2 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,3 and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.4 Today, I’d like to illuminate the state of religious liberty in America through the prism of recent cases to focus on two principles. The first principle is that government must provide equivalent legal protections to religious groups when it provides those same protections to secular groups. The second principle is that 1 Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (religious ministries’ RFRA challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s HHS mandate). 2 Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (a Muslim prisoner’s RLUIPA challenge to a ban on religious beards).
    [Show full text]
  • James G. Blaine and Justice Clarence Thomas‟ „Bigotry Thesis
    Forum on Public Policy Public Financing of Religious Schools: James G. Blaine and Justice Clarence Thomas‟ „Bigotry Thesis‟ Kern Alexander, Professor, Educational Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas writing for a plurality of the Court in Mitchell v. Helms in 2000 advanced the idea that state constitutional prohibitions against public funding of religious schools were manifestations of anti-Catholic bigotry in the late 19th century. Thomas‟ reading of history and law led him to believe that James G. Blaine a political leader in the United States of that era who advanced a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited states from funding Catholic schools was himself imbued with anti-Catholic bigotry and that his proposed amendment was a well-spring of religious intolerance that today prevents public funding of Catholic schools. This article attempts to look further into the issue to determine whether Thomas‟ understanding is accurate and whether it comports with the reality of conditions of the era and whether Blaine in fact had such motivations as ascribed to him by Justice Thomas. The article concludes that Thomas‟ view is overly simplistic and is based on an insular perception of Protestant versus Catholic intolerance in the United States and leaves out of consideration the fact that the real and larger issue of the era in the western world was the struggle between secularism and sectarianism, modernity and tradition, science and superstition, and individual liberty and clerical control. Importantly, the article concludes that Thomas‟s narrow thesis ignores international dimensions of conflicts of the era that pitted the impulse of nationalism and republican government against control of ecclesiastics regardless of whether they were Catholic or Protestant.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Firearms Industry and NRA Market Guns to Communities of Color
    JANUARY 2021 How the Firearms Industry and NRA Market Guns to Communities of Color WWW.VPC.ORG COPYRIGHT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Copyright © January 2021 Violence Policy Center Violence Policy Center 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1210 Washington, DC 20036 202-822-8200 The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national nonprofit educational organization that conducts research and public education on violence in America and provides information and analysis to policymakers, journalists, advocates, and the general public. This study was authored by VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann. Additional research assistance was provided by Alyssa Berkson, Jacob Gurvis, Nicholas Hannan, Ellie Pasternack, and Jill Rosenfeld. This study was funded with the support of The Joyce Foundation and the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund. For a complete list of VPC publications with document links, please visit http://www.vpc.org/publications. To learn more about the Violence Policy Center, or to make a tax-deductible contribution to help support our work, please visit www.vpc.org. 2 | VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER HOW THE FIREARMS INDUSTRY AND NRA MARKET GUNS TO COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Section One: The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Firearms Industry 4 Section Two: The National Rifle Association 20 Section Three: The NSSF and NRA Exploit COVID-19 in Their Marketing Efforts 28 Section Four: The Reality of Black and Latino Americans and Guns 32 Section Five: The Myth of Self-Defense Gun Use 36 Conclusion 38 This study is also available online at: https://vpc.org/how-the-firearms-industry-and-nra-market-guns-to-communities-of-color/.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 Years of Research : a Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, Law Library Publications 1842-1992 1992 150 years of research : a bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Linda K. Fariss Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/bibliography Part of the Legal Biography Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons Recommended Citation Fariss, Linda K., "150 years of research : a bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992" (1992). 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992. 1. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/bibliography/1 This Brochure is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Library Publications at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 compiled by: Keith A. Buckley Mitchell E. Counts Ralph F. Gaebler Michael M. Maben Marianne Mason F. Richard Vaughan Nona K. Watt edited by: Linda K.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Committee on Health and Human Services-April 13, 2021
    MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Eighty-first Session April 13, 2021 The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order by Chair Julia Ratti at 3:34 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, Online. Exhibit A is the Agenda. All exhibits are available and on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Julia Ratti, Chair Senator Pat Spearman, Vice Chair Senator Dallas Harris Senator Joseph P. Hardy Senator Ben Kieckhefer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Comlossy, Policy Analyst Eric Robbins, Counsel Norma Mallett, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Harold Wickham, Deputy Director, Department of Corrections Nick Shepack, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada William Pregman, Battle Born Progress Kendra Bertschy, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public Defender's Office Jim Hoffman, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice Jodi Hocking, Founder, Return Strong John Piro, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County Public Defender's Office Shawn Rochester Kara Freeman, DrPH, Nevada Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Alisa Howard, Owner, Minority Health Consultants Tina Dortch, Program Manager, Office of Minority Health and Equity, Department of Health and Human Services Karen Anderson, Senior Pastor, First African Methodist Episcopal Church Yindra Dixon, Managing Partner, Blackbox Consulting Group LLC Senate Committee on Health and Human Services April 13, 2021 Page 2 Dennis Creary, President, CEO, Blacks on Wall Street, Inc. Katie Roe Ryan, Dignity Health–St. Rose Dominican Andre Wade, Silver State Equality Alyssa Lacap Dena Schmidt, Administrator, Aging and Disability Services Division, Department of Health and Human Services Jeffrey Duncan, Social Services Chief, Aging and Disability Services Division, Department of Health and Human Services Charlie Shepard, AARP CHAIR RATTI: I call the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship: a Primer
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 76 Issue 1 Symposium on the Second Amendment: Article 2 Fresh Looks October 2000 The History and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship: A Primer Carl T. Bogus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Carl T. Bogus, The History and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship: A Primer, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 3 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER CARL T. BOGUS* This Symposium not only brings together the most impressive collection of scholars ever to address the Second Amendment but represents something of an historical event as well. A short description of the history and politics of Second Amendment scholarship is necessary to explain why that is so. If there is such a thing as settled constitutional law, the Second Amendment may have been its quintessential example. The United States Supreme Court addressed the Amendment three' times-in 1876,2 1886,3 and 19394-and on each occasion held that it granted the people a right to bear arms only within the militia.' Although in some circles today there is much discussion about what the word "militia" means, the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term.
    [Show full text]