Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Constitutional Conflict And Sensitive Places, Darrell A. H. Miller
Constitutional Conflict And Sensitive Places, Darrell A. H. Miller
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Revisionist History? Responding To Gun Violence Under Historical Limitations, Michael Ulrich
Revisionist History? Responding To Gun Violence Under Historical Limitations, Michael Ulrich
Faculty Scholarship
In the D.C. Circuit case Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” Now Justice Kavanaugh, will he find support on the highest court for what was then a dissenting view? Chief Justice Roberts, during oral arguments for Heller I, asked “Isn’t it enough to…look at the various regulations that were available at the time…and determine how these—how this restriction and the scope of this …
Considerations Of History And Purpose In Constitutional Borrowing, Robert Tsai
Considerations Of History And Purpose In Constitutional Borrowing, Robert Tsai
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
This essay is part of a symposium issue dedicated to "Constitutional Rights: Intersections, Synergies, and Conflicts" at William and Mary School of Law. I make four points. First, perfect harmony among rights might not always be normatively desirable. In fact, in some instances, such as when First Amendment and Second Amendment rights clash, we might wish to have expressive rights consistently trump gun rights. Second, we can't resolve clashes between rights in the abstract but instead must consult history in a broadly relevant rather than a narrowly "originalist" fashion. When we do so, we learn that armed expression and white …
Owning Heller, Darrell A. H. Miller
Owning Heller, Darrell A. H. Miller
Faculty Scholarship
Recent historical research using big-data techniques casts doubt on whether District of Columbia v. Heller was rightly decided according to originalist methods. These new discoveries put originalists in a bind. Do they embrace “faint hearted” originalism: the idea that as between the need for stability in prior decision making, settled expectations, and the coherence of the law, some adulterated decisions must remain enforced for the greater good? Or do they follow Justice Thomas’s reasoning in Gamble v. United States, remain stout-hearted, and reject any prior decision that cannot be supported by the common linguistic usage of the founding era – …