By Charles C. W. Cooke
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Those who are wondering why exactly they should be
alarmed by the prospect of President Obama’s replacing Antonin Scalia with yet
another advocate of the “living Constitution” should look no further than the
possibility that a post-Scalia Court will overturn D.C. vs. Heller.
I do not issue that warning in my capacity as a champion
of the right to keep and bear arms (although I will concede that I am that),
but as somebody who believes that history matters a great deal and who does not
want to see it rewritten in the name of transient expedience. It is often
presumed that my support for Heller
is the natural product of my having come around on the question of gun rights
per se. This, I’m afraid, is incorrect. Certainly, I have changed my mind as to
the wisdom of an armed populace (I used to be vehemently “anti-gun”), but that
conversion has had no meaningful bearing on the effects of the Constitution,
and nor should it. I also happen to be opposed the death penalty, but this has
no more led me to pretend that the Eighth Amendment prohibits capital
punishment than my opposition to abortion has pushed me to pretend that the
commerce clause would allow a federal ban. The text is the text, whatever I
might think of the outcomes it yields, and it must be treated as sacrosanct at
all times. The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms not
because I like the right to keep and bear arms, but because the evidence points
overwhelmingly in that direction.
There are many constitutional questions that yield
legitimate and necessary debate. But “What does the Second Amendment mean?”
most emphatically does not. In fact, the answer to that question is so
historically straightforward that I have come reluctantly to the conclusion
that the people who argue otherwise — yes, including the four dissenters in Heller — are doing little more than
playing cynical games in pursuit of a political end. There is a good reason
that every prominent legal figure in the republic’s first century characterized
the Second Amendment as protecting a right of the people that was not contingent upon service in the
militia (among them St. George Tucker, William Rawle, and Joseph Story), and
there is a good reason that James Madison either personally thanked those
figures for their explanations (as with Tench Coxe) or appointed them to the
judiciary (as with Story and Tucker). Those reasons? That this isn’t even close. Bluntly put, there is no credible
evidence from the Founding era to suggest that the Second Amendment protects
anything other than an individual right. The language of the amendment is
wholly consistent with its being applied to the individual (as elsewhere in the
Constitution, the right is deemed to be “of the people”); the English law that
preceded it supports the very same conclusion; and the “explanatory strictures”
proffered during the ratification debate do nothing less than to clinch the
deal. Writing in the late nineteenth century, Thomas Cooley predicted
presciently that the amendment’s prefatory clause (unusual now, but less so then) might cause
subsequent generations to misunderstand what was at that time universally
understood. Regrettably, in some quarters at least, his fears have been
realized.
We can, of course, have a legitimate debate as to what
limits may be imposed upon the amendment’s scope. Indeed, writing for the
majority in Heller, Antonin Scalia
did just that, conceding readily that the protection was not infinite. (This
concession should not be taken to
mean that the right is not robust, merely that Hugo Black-esque,
strict-constructionist absolutism is misguided). What we cannot do, however, is pretend that the amendment means what it
plainly does not. In order to make the case that the Heller dissenters made, one not only has to ignore the relevant
history, commentary, and linguistic norms, but to contend in true “Mad Hatter”
fashion that the Founders’ intent in drafting the Second Amendment was to
protect the right of individuals to join an organization over which the federal
government enjoys plenary power. That is preposterous.
The Second Amendment’s more honest critics (Dershowitz,
Levinson, Tribe, etc.) are admirably unwilling to lower themselves to making
such a contention, and will thus acknowledge its meaning even as they call for
its repeal or its limitation. Alas, at least four members of the Supreme Court
— namely: Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter — have shown no such honor, and
it is reasonable to assume that if Obama gets his way they will be joined by a
fifth. At that point we would be on the verge of a five-judge majority reading
one part of the Bill of Rights out of existence completely.
This, suffice it to say, fills me with horror — not
because I think Americans will suddenly give up their guns (the restoration of
the right to keep and bear arms was won politically, not legally), but because
it says terrible, terrible things about the future of the law, and casts
serious doubt upon the rightful role of judges in this republic. Republicans
pushing back against the next Obama appointee should understand that they are
not just defending the Constitution as written; they’re defending the integrity
of history too.
No comments:
Post a Comment