Orin asks -- in the context of our discussion of self-defense rights -- why the existence of state constitutional rights would be relevant to whether there is an analogous federal constitutional right. Let me offer a few thoughts on this.
1. Tradition: To begin with, the Court has made clear that whether American law traditionally recognizes a right is relevant to the existence and scope of federal constitutional rights. Washington v. Glucksberg says the existence of such a tradition is necessary to recognizing an unenumerated right (and Glucksberg strikes me as still important despite Lawrence v. Texas's seeming departure from the Glucksberg approach). Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia relied heavily on tradition in recognizing a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials (even though generally the First Amendment has not been read as securing a right of access to government property or proceedings).
Justice Scalia has long argued that traditional recognition of restraints should generally lead courts to uphold those restraints as constitutional, even where the question relates to the scope of an enumerated constitutional right. Likewise, in D.C. v. Heller itself, Justice Scalia suggested that various traditionally accepted gun controls would be constitutional, and my sense was that he was chiefly relying on tradition in doing so.
More broadly, in our legal system tradition -- which is to say the accumulated judgments of important governmental decisionmakers -- influences court decisions. That's clearest when the tradition comes from judicial precedent (even of other courts), but it's also visible when courts rely on legislative decisions (again, even outside the jurisdiction) and other governmental judgments. There are, for instance, many tort law cases in which courts choosing a common-law tort rule consider as authority the decisions of other state legislatures as well as the decisions of other courts.
2. State Constitutional Rights: And if courts look to traditional recognition of a right as evidence that the right should be further constitutionalized, it seems to me that recognition in state constitutions should be an especially influential form of recognition. Now it need not always be so, for instance if the right is controversial, and some state constitutions recognize it but others deliberately reject it. (Consider, for instance, "right to work" amendments in some state constitutions, which bar private employers and unions from requiring that all employees pay union dues.) But in a case such as self-defense, there is no such controversy. Rather, all the states recognize the right as a matter of common law or statute, and on top of that 21 states recognize the right in a state constitution, plus 23 more recognize a state constitutional right to bear arms in self-defense.
The state constitutional evidence as to self-defense (whether the 44 states if you include the right to bear arms in self-defense states, or only the 21 that speak separately of the right to defend life) thus strikes me as evidence of a particularly strong and important tradition of protecting the right. The state constitutional evidence may be neither necessary or sufficient, but it seems an important piece of data nonetheless, and likely to be of influence on courts considering -- especially under the Glucksberg rule -- whether to recognize a federal constitutional right of self-defense.
3. Rebutting the Charge of Novelty: Finally, consider a question that Orin himself asked as to whether there's a constitutional right of self-defense:
If it's so obvious, why is it that no one has recognized the right before? Indeed, why is it that (as far as I know) no one litigated the issue in court in the last 220 years despite hundreds of thousands if not millions of opportunities?
For reasons related to what I said in item 1, these sorts of questions are very important in a fundamentally conservative legal system, or for that matter to anyone who takes a Burkean or Burkeanish approach to constitutional law. Remember, as the old saying goes, "law is the only field where 'that's an original idea' is a pejorative."
Well, the state constitutional cases, and the court decisions I cited in which the claim was raised by the parties and in which the court recognized a constitutional right, seems to answer Orin's objection: Some people, specifically at least 21 sets of state constitutional drafters, plus the judges who applied the provisions, did recognize the right. Some people litigated the provisions -- not often, perhaps because the right to self-defense has been so broadly accepted, but sometimes. It's true that most of the cases involved people raising specific state constitutional rights, but some spoke more broadly about constitutional principles that weren't mentioned in that particular state's constitutional text. And of course it makes sense that litigants in state court would raise state constitutional objections, especially before the massive federalization of constitutional criminal procedure that mostly took place in the 1960s.
So I hope the state constitutional evidence -- both the provisions and the many cases I cited that apply the provisions, including sometimes to trump contrary statutes (and sometimes to interpret statutes or common-law principles) -- does help respond to Orin's "If it's so obvious, why is it that no one has recognized the right before?" objection. One can still argue, of course, that for various reasons the federal courts should decline to recognize a federal constitutional right to self-defense. But I hope I've demonstrated that the state constitutional evidence is important here, even if not by itself conclusive.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson to the World
- Three Difficulties With Using State Constitutional Rights to Infer Federal Constitutional Rights:
- The Natural Right of Self Defense.--
- The Relevance of State Constitutional Rights to a Federal Constitutional Right:
- The Relevance of State Constitutional Rights to A Federal Constitutional Right:...
- State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of Property:
- A Constitutional Right to Self-Defense?
- Heller and Self-Defense:
1.) What are the source of rights, and
2.) By what process does the U.S. Consititution include "unenumerated rights?
The first question invites distracting musings on natural law, and immanence, and social contracts and such, but are these are second order concerns. A more pragmatic apporoach would consider that the concept of rights has no relevance in the absence of a societal authority that can constrain his conduct. The source of rights then, is whatever power prevents a government or other authority from using force to limit a particular type of conduct. the source of rights under the Magna Carta was not a royal reservoir of altruism previously untapped, but the ability of the nobles to restrict King John from using force to disrupt the activities that the nobels wished to protect.
In the United States, the use of government force to accomplish whatever purpose is limited by the process that the founders chose to form a government using the principle stated in teh Declaration of Independence that governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed." Thus, the practical source of rights under the Constitution is its structure that presumes that the government has no power absent the assent of the people (e.g. providing that legislation regarding revenue originate in the House, and limiting funding of the military to two year increments, setting a high bar for amendment, etc). It is therefore understandable that rights begin to erode when checks and balances are disregarded. ( I also think that a lot of the criticism of Kennedy in the child rape decision was his unilateral assumption of arbiter as to whether there had been sufficient assent to affectively "grow" the eighth amendment.)
Therefore, in my opinion, the source of the right of self defense is that free people do not assent, because of tradition or natural law, common sense, or individual philosophy or whatever, to the government, by force, prohibiting a free citizen from protecting himself. I believe this to be Professor Volokh's point (but I could be wrong): that state constitutions, tradition, or what have you reflect whether the people to allowing the government to use force in limiting self defense.
Now the question becomes, did, or does the Constitution inherently recognize the right of self defense, such that the orderly functioning of society and respect for law provide that the government may not infringe the right, absent rebellion or other extraordinary means of the people withholding assent? Apparently Professor Kerr thinks that it might, but you'll have to prove it. Professor Volokh seems to hold that we can look to extraneous sources to determine if the government was ever intended to have that power. The practical issue is whether, if a legislature paseed a law outlawing self-defense, would a Court defer to the legislature, or find that the law transgressed unenumerated principles of basic liberty. (Well, we know how Kelo turned out.)
One can resort to penumbras and emanations and incorporation to answer the question, and of course, this is why there could very well be a 5-4 or 6-3 split on a decision if it ever came to the Supreme Court. Breyer would probably reprise his balancing test hooey but I think that Scalia's reasoning in Heller, as opposed to his conclusion, would find a Constitutional right to self defense (on historical grounds and such) but, like the right to keep and bear arms, one that can be limited, and by definition, infringed.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.