http://www.cato.org/people/robert-levy amast@cato.org (Andrew Mast) The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government. en-us http://www.cato.org/people/images/lowres/levy.jpg http://www.cato.org/people/robert-levy Robert A. Levy 100 140 http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/mcdonald_v_chicago.pdf District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed what most scholars and a substantial majority of Americans long believed: that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Heller led to the current challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, which raises the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects that right against infringement by state and local governments. The Seventh Circuit answered the question in the negative, finding itself foreclosed by 19th-century Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case and specifically consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause or its Privileges or Immunities Clause is the proper provision for incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as against the states. Cato, joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation, has filed a brief supporting those challenging the handgun ban—who are represented by Alan Gura, who successfully argued Heller—and calling for an overruling of the Slaughter-House Cases, which eviscerated the Privileges or Immunities Clause in 1873. Slaughter-House narrowly circumscribed the rights protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause, contrary to the intentions of the Amendment's framers and in direct contradiction to the developments in legal theory that underlay its adoption. We also argue that in addition to ignoring the history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Slaughter-House majority violated basic rules of constitutional interpretation. Finally, restoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause would not result in the demise of substantive due process because the idea at the core of that doctrine—that the Due Process Clause imposes something more than mere procedural limits on government power—was widely accepted when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted and its authors rightly believed that the Due Process and the Privileges or Immunities Clauses would provide separate but overlapping protections for individual rights.]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10990 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10504 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10504 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10411 Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10411 http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/chicago_second_am_brief.pdf District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed what the Framers, most scholars, and a substantial majority of Americans believe: that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Heller led to lawsuits raising the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects that right against infringement by state and local governments. In a consolidated case involving a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, the Seventh Circuit answered that question in the negative, finding itself foreclosed by 19th-century Supreme Court decisions. Cato, joining with the Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief supporting requests for the Supreme Court to review that line of precedent. We argue that the Court's initial encounters with the Fourteenth Amendment yielded a profound misreading of its Privileges or Immunities Clause that has haunted the Court's rights jurisprudence ever since. The Chicago petitions present the Court with an unprecedented opportunity to reach back to the very source of that misreading, the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, and there are three compelling reasons why the Court should do so: 1) the only disagreement among circuit courts in the wake of Heller is whether they are bound by the Court's decisions refusing to apply the right to keep and bear arms against the states; 2) case law and scholarly commentary together form a kind of constitutional conversation, which has arrived at a clear consensus about Slaughter-House that merits the Court's consideration; and 3) the Constitution is not merely a blueprint for government, but a charter of liberty. Accurately placing the Fourteenth Amendment within that tradition would be a virtue in itself and would sharpen the national dialogue regarding the source, nature, and limits of our rights.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10336 http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=920 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=920