Unenumerated Rights and the 14th Amendment
In the latest edition of Engage, the journal of the Federalist Society's practice groups, Alan Gura, the victorious lead attorney from the landmark gun rights cases D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, debates Professor Kurt T. Lash of the University of Illinois College of Law, over the question, "Does the Fourteenth Amendment Protect Unenumerated Rights?" It's a fascinating debate with profound implications for the judicial protection of individual rights. Here's a snippet from Gura's argument:
In contrast to what Professor Lash espouses, the approach I urged in McDonald is not at all original. That the Fourteenth Amendment secures a vision of classical liberty has long been established not merely as the "darling of the professoriate," but also that of its Framers, their ratifying public, practically all contemporaneous legal commentators, various Supreme Court Justices, and, most notably, the Fourteenth Amendment's bitterest opponents. One commentator went so far as to applaud the Slaughter-House Court for having "dared to withstand the popular will as expressed in the letter of [the Fourteenth] amendment."…
The Fourteenth Amendment's Framers were quite familiar with the unenumerated rights to earn a living, pursue a livelihood, make and enforce contracts, and own and convey property. The Nation was scandalized by the widespread violation of these rights throughout the unreconstructed South, prompting the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Amendment that constitutionalized it. Nor were these rights new concepts in this country. The Declaration of Independence itself condemned King George for having "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance," a refrain that echoes constantly throughout American political discourse.
Read the entire debate here. For more background on the McDonald approach Gura references, see here and here. Watch Gura talk about the Heller case with Reason.tv below.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Straightforward textual analysis pretty much gets you home.
The 14A doesn't say "oh, and the BOR applies to state action as well." It refers to privileges and immunities.
Generally speaking, in legal drafting, if what is intended is a cross-reference to another provision of the same document, then you, well, stick with me here, you cross-reference that otehr provision of the same document.
By not cross-referencing the BOR, the drafters of the 14A can pretty well be assumed to have not intended to merely cross-reference the BOR.
When we moved away from personal liberty being the default position, we moved away from wisdom.
There are no unenumerated rights. Everything not mandatory is illegal.
"The Declaration of Independence itself condemned King George for having 'erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,' a refrain that echoes constantly throughout American political discourse."
Sounds like the New Deal...
Which explains why this portion of the Declaration is quoted so rarely.
Bingham said the Fourteenth Amendment "ought to specify, in detail, the civil rights which we propose to assure."
Actually a large majority of the House including Bingham supported Slaughterhouse. See here:
http://www.federalistblog.us/h.....2-bingham/
I wonder if Bingham was familiar with the 9th amendment? Why should the 14th be any more specific?
Hey guys, maybe you are interested in the best club for seeking the rich cougars, sexy young men. ...what's the most important is that you can find a sugarmomma who can pay all your needs ==:: :/.COGUARA.//COM ::==Where you can find tens of thousands of matches and friends right here, especially those in your city.
My witty comments get flagged as spam, and this gets through.
Great filter, that.
Generally speaking, in legal drafting, if what is intended is a cross-reference to another provision of the same document, then you, well, stick with me here, you cross-reference that otehr provision of the same document.
http://gunshowsnow.com
"The Declaration of Independence itself condemned King George for having 'erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,' a refrain that echoes constantly throughout American political discourse."
Generally speaking, in legal drafting, if what is intended is a cross-reference to another provision of the same document, then you, well, stick with me here, you cross-reference that otehr provision of the same document.
Bingham said the Fourteenth Amendment "ought to specify, in detail, the civil rights which we propose to assure."
why did they sooo that
Nice article.
It's good news that unenumerated Rights.
I like this article
http://www.coachoutletonline-five.com
http://www.ccoachfactoryoutletonline.com