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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Interesting campus rule | Main | Insight on the three "bored" teens who killed Chris Lane »

Randy Barnett on originalism

Posted by David Hardy · 20 August 2013 02:57 PM

Prof. Barnett's points, as always, are concise and sharp.

"If it was genuinely not possible to identify the meaning of language at a previous point in time, then old contracts could not be enforced according to their meaning at the time of their formation (which is what the law of contracts requires), old statutes would be a mystery and impossible to follow or enforce, and classic Supreme Court opinions would be impossible to understand."

We can go even farther. There are, in Arizona, the "Baca Float Ranges," large tracts of land given to the Baca family in settlement of a land grant to them from the King of Spain. Court there had to carry out an agreement made prior to the Framing, and in another language.

"The only language that is claimed to be inscrutable mystery to lawyers (but not historians) is the foundational law provided by the U.S. Constitution. How are we lawyers able to follow the 200+ year-old-opinions in Marbury, Gibbons and McCulloch, but not the Constitution itself, written a mere 30-40 years earlier? Has anyone seriously suggested that lawyers need to consult historians to tell them the communicative content of these precedents?"

· General con law

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Steve Moyer | August 21, 2013 1:49 PM | Reply

I come here and over at VC for help understanding the mindset of lawyers all the time. One of my friends is the current prosecuting attorney and one is a retired judge (both Democrats.) In order to have a hope of equality in discussions I need all the help I can get. I don't understand all I read but enough soaks in that I can get a few good jabs in now and again, well enough that both of them think I'm a much deeper thinker than I am. Thanks are due to both sites for spreading information so well.

fwb | August 21, 2013 10:59 PM | Reply

I am constantly amazed, no mystified, no baffled at the ignorance of those in the legal profession who claim the language of the Constitution is difficult to discern. Truthfully nothing in the language of the Constitution is different from how it would be said today. The problem lies in the ignorance of those who think they have some idea of the variations in language. What I do see is that most of the claimants have an agenda to push. They need to set up and maintain their authoritarian position on having the sole ability to use their crystal balls (hiding under their black robes) to determine what is hidden between the lines.

All that is really necessary is to read the Constitution as a complete document and to use the other clauses and phrase to determine limits on the words used by the Framers.

Take natural born citizen for a moment. Many claim we don't know what this means. But the term was well recognized at the writing of the Constitution. In England, the father must be a citizen and the child born in country. According to Vattel, the father AND mother had to be citizens and the child born in country. Nothing has changed. Congress cannot define "natural born citizen" because if Congress can define one term or clause, Congress can define ALL terms and clauses and the Constitution becomes meaningless. AND Congress is subordinate, created by the Constitution, and thus cannot decide what anything in the document means. IF Congress as a subordinate can decide meanings, then ANYONE subject to any document, say a court order, has the authority to decide what the document means. No legal authority would ever agree to this.

Leave a comment