Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Proposal for "shall issue" CCW in New York | Main | "The World Must Wonder How the US can Tolerate Guns »

Originalism as contract theory

Posted by David Hardy · 7 September 2006 09:55 AM

Agoraphilia suggests viewing the Constitution as a contract.

There's much to that, altho Randy Barnett has pointed out it's not quite contractual. It binds me, even tho in 1789 my mother's ancestors were in Italy and Austria, and for all I know my father's ancestors objected to it (and in either event, I wasn't alive yet). Barnett finds the basis for originalism in a variant of the view. What, he asks, makes a law morally binding? (As opposed to practically binding -- the consideration that those in power will punish you for not heeding it). His answer is that the law was made pursuant to a system created by our ancestors, and the implied agreement is that if those temporarily in power heed the Constitution, we will heed the laws made pursuant to it. If they could say the Constitution has evolved to let them do what they please, then we could say that, morally, there is no duty to obey the laws they create.

· General con law

2 Comments

Rudy DiGiacinto | September 8, 2006 2:42 PM

“To protect the weaker from the injuries and insults of the stronger were societies first formed; when men entered into compacts…” George Mason, Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company, April 1775

Black’s Law Dictionary- Compact “An agreement or contract between persons, nations or states.”

“The constitution not only constitutes the contract between a member and the association but it also constitutes the contract between a member or members and other members.” Amalgamated Clothing W’k’rs v. Kiser, 174 Va. 229 (1940).

Contract seems right to me.


W. Bailey | September 8, 2006 8:31 PM

It seems to me not much different from many organizational compacts which establish themselves with an eye toward continuation. The contractual nature seems implicit to me: these are the norms/rules of the system which are the liberties/encomberances of every citizen. You are bound to them as a citizen. However, the relatively unique "at liberty" assumptions about sovereign citizens of the compact means you are free to leave if you don't accept the "rules of engagement." Being new to the system, whether born into it with birth rights, or coming wholly de nova doesn't seem to me a moral grounds for disputing the de facto contract of the system, and especially when you are free to leave.