District of Columbia v. Heller

P.S. Huff

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in District of Columbia v. Heller this morning. (Of course, by "blogospheric" standards, that's already old news.) For the majority opinion and dissents, click here.

Essentially, the Court has held that the Second Amendment protects a meaningful private right, not dependent on militia-service; and that DC's handgun ban and its trigger-lock requirement (which contains no self-defense exception) violate that right.

I'll have some more substantive commentary before long.

Kennedy v. Louisiana

P.S. Huff

The U.S. Supreme Court released four opinions this morning. Out of the cases decided, the most high-profile is easily Kennedy v. Louisiana, concerning the constitutionality of imposing a death sentence as punishment for child rape. The Court's holding in Kennedy is not nuanced (slip op., 1):

This case presents the question whether the Constitution bars respondent from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in death of the victim. We hold the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for this offense.

One interesting question is what the Court's decision means for the punishment of treason. The Court says that "[its] concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons" (slip op., 27):

We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State. As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken.

Well, fair enough; the Court does not address them. But what reasoning might support such a distinction? The answer certainly isn't obvious; and at least as far as my quick reading of the opinion reveals, the Court does not supply one.

In any event, the Court's opinion is available here.

June 21

P.S. Huff

On this day in 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution of the United States:

In Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of New-Hampshire June the Twenty first 1788.

The Convention haveing Impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America & submitted to us by a Resolution of the General Court of said State passed the fourteenth Day of December last past and acknowledgeing with gratefull Hearts the goodness of the Supreme ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the Course of his Providence an Opportunity, deliberately & peaceably without fraud or surprize of entering into an Explicit and solemn compact with each other by assenting to & ratifying a new Constitution, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestick Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves & their Posterity—Do In the Name & behalf of the People of the State of New-Hampshire assent to & ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America.

Article VII of the Constitution of course affirms that "[t]he Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Needless to say, it was hardly time for the Federalists to declare total victory and relax. Indeed, union without Virginia and New York would be about as useful as no union at all.

Even so, happy 220th anniversary of the dawning of our Constitution.

(As an side: The U.S. Supreme Court would hold in Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), that "[the Constitution's] operation did not commence before the first Wednesday in March, 1789." But for an intriguing critique, see Lawson and Seidman, When Did the Constitution Become Law?, 77 Notre Dame Law Review 1 (2001)—to download from SSRN, click here.)

And Then There Were Ten

P.S. Huff

The Supreme Court released five opinions this morning, all of which can be downloaded here. That leaves ten cases still awaiting the announcement:

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (No. 06-1457; Argued 02/19/08)

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (No. 07-219; Argued 02/27/08)

Rothgery v. Gillespie County (No. 07-440; Argued 03/17/08)

District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290; Argued 03/18/08)

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. (No. 07-411; Argued 04/14/08)

Greenlaw v. United States (No. 07-330; Argued 04/15/08)

Kennedy v. Louisiana (No. 07-343; Argued 04/16/08)

Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. (No. 07-552; Argued 04/21/08)

Davis v. Federal Election Commission (No. 07-320; Argued 04/22/08)

Giles v. California (No. 07-6053; Argued 04/22/08)

Only Justices Scalia and Souter are still without a lead opinion for the March sitting. Meanwhile, two cases from that sitting remain undecided; namely, District of Columbia v. Heller and Rothgery v. Gillespie County. It would be a fairly safe bet, then, to say that Justice Scalia is writing the opinion in one, and Justice Souter in the other.

The blockbuster, of course, is Heller, the Second Amendment case. Judging by the oral argument, it appears very likely--though by no means is it certain--that Heller will prevail. If that guess proves correct, Justice Scalia is the probable author. Justice Souter's questions at oral argument suggested a great deal of skepticism toward Heller's position, and particularly the threshold question of whether the Second Amendment protects a private, individual right at all. Justice Scalia, in contrast, unambiguously endorsed the individual-right theory in his book, A Matter of Interpretation, and his questions at oral argument suggest he's firmly in Heller's camp.

My prediction, then: Justice Scalia has the lead opinion in Heller. Whether I'm right or wrong, a week's time should tell.

John Marshall and the "General Welfare Clause"

P.S. Huff

A treasure buried in the Marshall Papers:

I have never beleived [sic] that the words "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of The United States" were to be considered as a substantive grant of power, but as a declaration of objects for which taxes &c might be levied.

See Hobson (ed.), The Papers of John Marshall, Letter to Timothy Pickering, March 18th, 1828 (Vol. XI, p. 87).

When it came to the so-called General Welfare Clause, it seems the "extreme nationalist" John Marshall had something of a Jeffersonian streak. Surprised?

The chief justice's "states' rights" concession here, tends to confirm doubts as to whether McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), really stand for all that conventional wisdom attributes to them.

At the very least, the comment is of historical interest.

ConSource.org

P.S. Huff

I recently stumbled upon ConSource.org, a free, online compilation of historical materials related to the Constitution. Though apparently in its infancy, the resource is already quite impressive--and showcases, once again, the great potential of the internet.

In my opinion, the site's interface could use some tweaking. Even so, ConSource is a useful and much-needed digital archive. By all means, check it out.

SCOTUS Watch

P.S. Huff

Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided four cases: Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (PDF, HTML), Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (PDF, HTML), Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. (PDF, HTML), and Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders (PDF, HTML).

That leaves 22 more cases to be decided before the summer recess. They are (in alphabetical order):

Boumediene v. Bush (No. 06-1195)

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (No. 06-939)

Dada v. Mukasey (No. 06-1181)

Davis v. Federal Election Commission (No. 07-320)

District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290)

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (No. 07-219)

Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. (No. 07-312)

Giles v. California (No. 07-6053)

Greenlaw v. United States (No. 07-330)

Indiana v. Edwards (No. 07-208)

Irizarry v. United States (No. 06-7517)

Kennedy v. Louisiana (No. 07-343)

Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (No. 06-1037)

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (No. 06-1505)

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn (No. 06-923)

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (No. 06-1457)

Munaf v. Geren (No. 06-1666)

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel (No. 06-1204)

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. (No. 07-411)

Rothgery v. Gillespie County (No. 07-440)

Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. (No. 07-552)

Taylor v. Sturgell (No. 07-371)

The most high-profile of these are probably Boumediene v. Bush (Guantanamo Bay detainees, habeas corpus, and the 2006 Military Commissions Act), Kennedy v. Louisiana (constitutionality of punishing child rape with death), and of course District of Columbia v. Heller (the Second Amendment case). It should be an interesting June.

The next day for opinions is this Thursday, June 12.

The Euro and the U.S. Dollar

P.S. Huff

Bryan Caplan at EconLog:

The Euro has much better denominations than the dollar. Instead of $1 bills, they've got 1€ and 2€ coins, worth about $1.50 and $3.00 respectively. Tipping's a lot easier; so are vending machines. The bills start off at 5€, which means you'll probably never have trouble closing your wallet.

Eh? Having to carry around coins is an improvement?

Perhaps I'm just odd, but I'll take the American system.

Quote of the Day?

P.S. Huff

From Thomas Sowell's latest column (line break omitted): "Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober--if not grim--assessment of where we are. Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates."

My sentiments, exactly. (The column heads downhill from there, however.)