The Undergraduate Legal Studies Program and
the Institute for Legal Studies at the Law School
announce the following Harris Lecture and panel discussion
open to faculty, students, and the public:
Is the Second Amendment Still Embarrassing (and for Whom)?
by
Sanford Levinson
Noted Second Amendment and Constitutional Scholar
University of Texas School of Law
Friday, February 17, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Godfrey and Kahn Hall (Room 2260)
University of Wisconsin Law School
This lecture is made possible through the generous support
of the Audrey J. Harris Legal Studies Endowment.
The lecture will be followed by a panel discussion moderated by Donald Downs, Professor of Political Science, Law, and Journalism and Director of the Legal Studies Program and the Criminal Justice Certificate Program. Panelists include Ann Althouse, Robert W. and Irma Arthur-Bascom Professor of Law; John Sharpless, Professor of History; and Howard Schweber, Assistant Professor of Political Science.
Sanford Levinson (JD 1973, Stanford; PHD 1969, Harvard; AB 1962, Duke University) is the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law and Professor of Government at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. He joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980. Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas. The author of over 200 articles in professional and more popular journals, Levinson is also book author of Constitutional Faith (1988, winner of the Scribes Award); Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998); and Wrestling With Diversity (2003). Most recently, he was the editor of Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press, 2004), which includes reflections on the morality, law, and politics of torture from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. He has also edited Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment (1995), and co-edited Reading Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (1988, with Steven Mallioux); Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies (with William Eskridge, 1998); Legal Canons (with Jack Balkin, 2000), and a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (4th ed. 2000, with Paul Brest, Jack Balkin, and Akhil Amar). He has visited at the Harvard, Yale, New York University, and Boston University law schools, as well as at the University of Paris II, Central European University in Budapest, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. A member of the American Law Institute, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.
February 10, 2006
"Is the Second Amendment Still Embarrassing (and for Whom)?"
Reprinting an announcemnt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Embarrassing? Don't get it. Is that like admitting at a cocktail party that you voted for Bush?
Maybe I haven't read enough legal hermeneutical tomes.
Levinson wrote a famous article called "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." You can read it here. His concluding paragraph:
"For too long, most members of the legal academy have treated the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative, whose mention brings a quick change of subject to other, more respectable, family members. That will no longer do. It is time for the Second Amendment to enter full scale into the consciousness of the legal academy. Those of us who agree with Martha Minow's emphasis on the desirability of encouraging (p.659)different "voices" in the legal conversation[100] should be especially aware of the importance of recognizing the attempts of Mr. Donaldson and his millions of colleagues to join the conversation. To be sure, it is unlikely that Professor Minow had those too often peremptorily dismissed as "gun nuts" in mind as possible providers of "insight and growth," but surely the call for sensitivity to different or excluded voices cannot extend only to those groups "we" already, perhaps "complacent[ly]," believe have a lot to tell "us."[101] I am not so naive as to believe that conversation will overcome the chasm that now separates the sensibility of, say, Senator Hatch and myself as to what constitutes the "right[s] most valued by free men [and women]."[102] It is important to remember that one will still need to join up sides and engage in vigorous political struggle. But it might at least help to make the political sides appear more human to one another. Perhaps "we" might be led to stop referring casually to "gun nuts" just as, maybe, members of the NRA could be brought to understand the real fear that the currently almost uncontrolled system of gun ownership sparks in the minds of many whom they casually dismiss as "bleeding-heart liberals." Is not, after all, the possibility of serious, engaged discussion about political issues at the heart of what is most attractive in both liberal and republican versions of politics?"
I wish I could come see this.
I stumbled across the paper on-line while researching this post and found it an interesting take on the Second Amendment's status in the legal community.
Ann, will you be posting a follow up after the discussion?
"Still" embarrassing? How can something "still" be embarrassing when it never was embarrassing in the first place?
This is just bizarre. How did you get roped into this?
The Second Amendment has embarrassed those on the left since, say, the 1960s.
When they talk about American society with their friends in Europe, or among themselves here, the Second Amendment stands there, like a big, obnoxious black-sheep member of a family.
It's a reminder of a kind of America they see themselves as superior to.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Like so much of the Constitution, that's just meaningless gibberish. That's why lawyers have been able to argue about what it means for two centuries without reaching any conclusion. The people who should be embarrassed are those who wrote it, but they're past caring.
I'm sorry, but "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.
The embarrasing part is that some people try to use the infamous preamble to invalidate the entire right.
This sounds interesting.
You'll have to post a followup for those of us too far away to attend.
I never realized how many people felt this way about the Second Amendment until I took the bar exam in 2004. The last of the twelve essay questions was the Constitutional Law question, which had been nearly guaranteed by the test preparers to be either commerce clause or freedom of speech. When the hundreds of people in the convention center turned to the last question all nearly at the same time, you could hear LOUD gasps from all over the room. The ConLaw question was an extremely bizarre question about the manufacture and sale of build-your-own-missle-launcher kits. After the exam, the general grumblings fell into "only in Arizona would they ask us this" or "which one is the Second Amendment again?"
I found the reaction annoying - the Second Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the First one. It's enouch to make you want to grab an AK and head out into the desert for some target shooting.
I need glasses, I thought it was the right to free speech that was embarrassing so many people, like the buffoonery over false religious prophets. I got embarrassed when I read about the Swedish government shutting down a web site that showed cartoons of mohammed. No wonder the nazis were able to occupy Sweden in just under 20 minutes. I'm drifting a bit. For extreme Leftists that worry so much about Adolph Bush taking control of the entire nation in one grand right wing coup, they sure want to concentrate guns in the hands of just one element of society, the police and military, don't they? Hmmm, they must be banking hard on Hillary and Howie being the next White House couple. Can't you just hear Howie shrieking over the presence of guns in American homes?? I'm really drifting now, sorry.
Am I incorrect in thinking that Alex Kozinski said almost the same thing a few years ago- something about not treating the Second Amendment like a senile old relative we ignore and keep in the back of the house. Or was I just attributing the Levinson quote to Kozinski?
Uh, Goesh, Sweden was never occupied by the Nazis. It remained neutral throughout the war.
Frankly, I suspect that most folks who carry guns are more polite than the unarmed citizens in general. Why? Because we know damned well what our rights and responsibilities are. If we don't try our best to de-escalate any situation we will be both criminally and civilly liable.
There are very few gun crimes committed by legal gun owners or CCW permit holders.
In Silveira v. Lockyer Kozinski said: "It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us."
Anonlawstudent - What conduct is embarassing that the Second Amendment protects? Legal registered gun ownership by the law abiding public? Which in turns protects law and order and the right to be secure in your person by deterring crime?
Heck, anon, you did a fine job on that thread. One of the better comment discussions I have had anywhere.
This is going to be great. I met Sharpless at a scotch tasting at Barriques on Monroe St. He is a funny and smart guy. I will do everything I can to be there..."still embarassing"? Never was, never will be.
Off subject.
I took a couple classes from Sandy. Fabulous teacher, and one of the most accessible professors (for students) that I've ever encountered. One of his pet beliefs was that the Supreme Court could use some non-legal (but skilled in other disciplines) blood, to give it an expanded view of the American landscape. If the conversation gets around to it, ask him what he thought of the Harriet Miers thing; whether this was a step in the direction which he envisioned, and whether he still thinks the Court could benefit by a broader Weltanschauung?
There is nothing embarrassing about the militias. The National Guard is currently training the Afghan national army, guarding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and fighting in Iraq. Last year, they responded to Katrina.
Heh, heh.
Regardless of how one feels about the Second Amendment I assure that it is embarassing to many of the more liberal persuasion.
First, it foeces them to argue that an egg is a paper clip by the application of legal logic.
Second it stigmatizes them as belonging to a less cultured society -- something like having someone over and having to excuse yourself to have to go shoot a squirrel so there is something in the pot for dinner (sorry, Ann).
Finally, it will sooner or later lead to a display of abysmal technical ignorance, much as I squirm a bit when someone starts discussing modern art.
Does that mean, Marghler, that somehow in your mind the preamble transmogrifies the word "people" to mean "militia"?
My point was, Marghlar, that whatever the justification for the creation of the right (as outlined in the preamble), the second clause is clear: the right of the people to keep and BEAR Arms shall not be infringed.
The amendment does not say the right of the Militia or the right of the State. It says the right of the people.
The preamble may very well be WHY the founders established the right, but the right itself is in no way limited by the preamble.
I'm not sure how you could interpret it as being limiting.
Would you argue that if a State's militia was "badly regulated" all the guns in that state could be seized?
That would seem to be a logical conclusion of holding that the first clause was functioning as a conditional.
Well, that sounds like a good program. The right and left need to talk and not just hurl insults over the Great Divide at each other.
Wish I could be there. Hey, suggest is to C-span.
At the time the Second Amendment was enacted, the word "militia" meant a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation. Many of the early colonies actually required by law that every adult male provide himself with a musket. This requirement was carried over in the Mililtia Act of 1792.
If a "regulated" militia is made up of an armed citizenry, it stands to reason that the "people" must have a right "to keep and bear arms".
Purpose of the Amendment is clear; it is to protect the peoples' inherent right to protect themselves against tyranny.
One good place to find a lot of 2nd Amdt. stuff is on the personal sites of some of the Volokh.com conspirators. Eugene, for one, started as believing that the 2nd Amdt. was a collective right, etc., and very quickly came to the opposite conclusion. He has a lot of 2nd Amdt. stuff, including a bunch of law review articles, as well as teaching law school classes in 2nd Amdt. But, as noted, the Volokh conspirators are pretty much in favor of a pro-individual 2nd Amdt. rights interpretation. You need to go elsewhere for the collective rights arguments.
Post a Comment