Replies

And I don't entirely blame the judges; the culture creates the problem, too. Pick just about any high-court ruling on any subject, and observe the criticism or praise that comes from pundits: Virtually nowhere do you see the decision evaluated on the basis of whether or not the writer thinks it's a valid reading of the law; it is only evaluated on the basis of whether or not the writer thinks the ruling would make good policy, so they're outright encouraging judges to act as priestly lawgivers.

You're absolutely right. If the Boy Scout case had been decided based upon your interpretation of the due process clause, most local news programs would have begun their broadcast with something along the lines of "The Supreme Court ruled today that the Boy Scouts of America must accept gay scout leaders." Now, that would literally be correct (at least in the state of New Jersey), but the public would be left with the impression that the Supreme Court just sort of decided on its own that it would be a good idea to have gay scout leaders. And the call buttons at talk radio shows would light up like Christmas trees. Unless someone read down to maybe the tenth paragraph of a major newspaper, he/she might never know that it involved an example of judicial restraint rather than one of judicial activism.

It's not that I think it would be a good thing for them to start restricting free speech and gun ownership, but that it definitely would be a good thing if they didn't have some busybody second-guessing their laws and policies all the time.

I think that for most people who feel that the Fourteenth Amendment has been overused, the real concern is the federalism issue rather than the issue of legislative vs. judicial powers. Let me give you an example. A lot of people were very angry when the Supreme Court began using the equal protection clause to strike down state laws which expressly discriminated between people on the basis of race. They were angry at the Supreme Court for "acting like a mini-legislature." But whenever the Congress uses Section 5 of the amendment to pass legislation on the basis of the equal protection clause, many of the same people who had resented the Supreme Court's involvement (when it was acting alone) then turn around and insist that the Supreme Court become involved by declaring the act of Congress unconstitutional. So it seems to me that these people are less concerned about the Supreme Court getting involved than they are about any branch of the Federal government getting involved. A lot of folks just have a difficult time coming to terms with the fact that, by anyone's interpretation, the Fourteenth Amendment did involve an enlargement of the central government's powers at the expense of the states.

You gentlemen certainly deserve praise and thanks for conducting a thorough, interesting, dogged, and mostly civil debate about the 14th Amendment.

Before I get into what I want to ask, I think we can agree on a few things:

The words in the Constitution and Amendments must be given the meanings they had when ratified. In other words, since meanings change over time in a living language such as English, we cannot arbitrarily apply 1868 meanings to words used in 1789, nor vice versa.
We must give harmonious effect and meaning to every word and phrase used in the Constitution (as amended) standing alone if at all possible. Only if, due to perceived ambiguity, we cannot do that, may we go outside of the document to attempt to give its provisions and language meaning in attempting to judicially construe it.
If our predecessors have judicially construed the document after finding parts of it ambiguous, we must consider their conclusions, but we are not bound by them, and we are entitled to consider the document de novo.

I think we can also agree on certain definitions of English words as meaning the same now as in 1789 and all intervening times:

arms means weapons
weapon means any instrument of offense or defense used in fighting
liberty means the power to act as one thinks fit

I hope we can also agree that the broad principles of the Constitution are meaningless if they are not applicable individually. IOW, it's meaningless for it to say nobody can be deprived of life by a state without due process if a particular individual can be.

Scenario: A legally unimpaired citizen has been threatened with imminent bodily harm or death by known persons or their unknown associates. (Note: the following characterizations of weapons laws may not be accurate, and they're only related as examples.)

Living in Chicago, he is forbidden by law from having a handgun, thus he is not at liberty to secure one for his defense. However, he may have other weapons, such as a brass lamp, bowling trophy, crowbar, etc.
Living in Texas, he must prove to the state that he is competent with a handgun, pay a fee, and wait for a considerable time before he is legally able to have one always available for his defense. However, like living in Chicago, he can have other weapons if he chooses.
Living in California, he has the restrictions of Texas plus he must also obtain the arbitrary permission of a regional law enforcement officer before he is legally able to always have a handgun available for his defense.
Living in Arizona, he can openly carry a handgun, but he cannot conceal it in his car, briefcase, or on his person without first going through steps similar to those applicable in Texas.
Living in Vermont, he can simply do whatever he wants to have a handgun available for his defense.

Obviously, our exemplar citizen should live in Vermont if he thinks having a handgun is important to preserving his life. Otherwise he will have to get along with a concealed brass lamp, brick, or other object that's not expressly classified as a restricted weapon in his locale.

It's interesting that when Vermont and Hawaii appeared close to recognizing same sex unions as "marriages" in the legal sense, other states got all worked up because of a 14th Amendment interpretation that they would be forced to also recognize such unions as marriages.

It's not necessary to navigate the legal minefield of a VT citizen vacationing in CA carrying a concealed pistol to see the manifold Constitutional problems these disparate laws present, and all of that is without ever addressing the Second Amendment.

Among other arguments, I would attack the disparate regional laws infringing the individual right protected by the 2nd Amendment through the 14th Amendment's prohibition against a state's depriving a citizen of the liberty to peaceably act to protect himself because it cannot be argued that a law enforcement agency is either able or obligated to protect him, especially since it cannot act against a potential criminal until a criminal act has been performed, and it has been historically unable to prevent criminal acts with handguns or criminals from having handguns.

The 2nd Amendment does not NEED to be incorporated into the 14th Amendment's ambit through general arguments. Applying specific facts in a case (perhaps U.S. v. Haney) may do the job quite nicely.

What I want to ask is for you to direct your formidable legal and analytical skills to the propositions and arguments suggested here.