This is from ACADEME TODAY: The Chronicle of Higher Education's http://chronicle.com/
While it isn't specifically one firearms/2nd Amendment, it is about how the 2nd would be interpreted. This is just a small excerpt (the article seems to be 600+ lines). --henry schaffer >MAGAZINES & JOURNALS > >A glance at the February/March issue of "Boston Review": >The people and the Constitution > >The Supreme Court today is generally assumed to be the >appropriate arbiter of constitutional questions, but the concept >of judicial supremacy, now widely accepted, is not "how our >Founding Fathers meant it to be," writes Larry D. Kramer, a >professor of law at New York University. In fact, he says, the >concept gained primacy only from the 1960s to the 1980s. > >To the framers, he notes, turning decisions about the >Constitution over to "a lawyerly elite" was "simply >unthinkable." In that spirit, "the people" exercised their >"popular constitutionalism" first through informal means, from >petitions to mob action, and later through formalized branches >of government. > >In drafting the Constitution, James Madison took steps to >"complicate politics" so as to subject unreflective decisions to >Congressional, executive, and finally popular review. Judicial >supremacy, which was framed during the 1790s by anti-populist, >conservative Federalists, struggled for nearly 200 years to gain >ascendancy. > >The tension boiled over, and was again decided in favor of >popular constitutionalism, when the court blocked President >Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in 1936 and 1937. A "New Deal >settlement" lasted until the mid-1990s, says Mr. Kramer, even >though the Warren and Burger Courts, which sat from 1954 to >1986, both stretched it, cheered on by progressives who >supported the court's liberal activism during that era. > >Since the 1980s, the Rehnquist Court has carried the theory "to >its logical conclusion," writes Mr. Kramer. He adds, however, >that the Rehnquist Court has supported its actions by >misrepresenting the history of the struggle. "Sometime in the >past generation or so," he writes, "constitutional history was >recast -- turned on its head, really -- as a story of judicial >triumphalism." > >For citizens to reclaim the Constitution, Mr. Kramer suggests, >may entail "publicly repudiating justices who say that they, >not we, possess the ultimate authority to interpret the >Constitution." And, he adds, "it means publicly reprimanding >politicians who insist that 'as Americans' we should >submissively yield to whatever the Supreme Court decides." > >The article, "We the People: Who Has the Last Word >on the Constitution?," is available online at >http://www.bostonreview.net/BR29.1/kramer.html _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
