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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Mass killing in Australia | Main | FBI stops processing of NICS denial appeals »

Interesting thoughts on constitutional history and originalism

Posted by David Hardy · 17 May 2018 10:17 AM

From Law and Liberty, Part One and Part Two.

The point I have regarding non-originalists is more legal/political than historical. Federal judges are, of course, unelected and given life tenure. They do not stand for re-nomination at any time. Indeed, it's unconstitutional for Congress to reduce their salaries. What's the rationale for having officials chosen and kept in office in such an un-democratic manner? It's that the judges, in theory, only execute the will of the people as expressed by folks other than judges -- by Congress, or the President, or the Constitutional Convention and the states that ratified its creation. That is, judges are passive implementors of other people's decisions, and thus can be kept outside the democratic process. If judging is seen as something else -- implementing policy, deciding what is best for the country, implicitly amending the Constitution (a measure that otherwise requires super-majorities in both Congress and the state legislatures) -- is there any reason to have a judiciary so insulated from democratic forces? The "living Constitution" begs the question of which human beings make it "live." And thus why those human being should be people never elected by anyone and given lifetime tenures in power. We'd be outraged at designating a "president for life," and denounce it as monarchy. How can we justify a system in which the Constitution's content would be dictated and amended by "judges for life"?

Hat tip to Joe Olson...

2 Comments | Leave a comment

rick | May 17, 2018 11:50 AM | Reply

To my understanding, the rational was to have a completely impartial supreme justice. That hasn't worked too well. The apologists say, well, they are only people too. This to explain away their often disregard for jurisprudence.

US Constitution Article III, Section 1; "Good behavior"

When speaking of a 'living Constitution', it would be good to review the work of Christopher Columbus Langdell. A real scoundrel, that one.

Jay Dee | May 18, 2018 5:15 AM | Reply

I have often argued that the constitution needs a recall amendment. On a vote by two thirds of the states, any law, regulation or judicial ruling can be revoked. Any judge, appointed official or government employee can be fired under the recall amendment. The sole exception is elected officials as they are already subject to the will of the people.

Judges, appointed officials and government employees fired under this provision are ineligible for future government jobs and lose all government pensions.

Leave a comment