REPOST (for Greg): Legal Construction and the Second Amendment

Since he thinks he knows the rule of the game:

In proper legal theory, one has to use the text of a law to determine its meaning and the rules of legal construction and interpretation to divine the meaning. We shall use this as our text for the Second Amendment:

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.

I picked this version because I don't want tiny minds making stupid comments about punctuation even though the four comma version might be better for the point I'm trying to make here. But we will use this version. Given the intellect of some people answering this, it is probably better to use smaller numbers (yes, and what comes after two????). After all, you give them 2+2 and they come up with 5.

Anyway, We are not going to discuss whether this is an individual, collective or civic right. We are going to analyse the sentence that is the Second Amendment. We will also look at it in light of what the Constitution says.

Why is there a "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" using the words above? What is the scope of this right?

If your answer is self-defence, then you are wrong since the phrase self-defence is not plainly written in the text. It is a common legal principle that one cannot infer something when it is not plainly written in the text. It is a principle of statutory interpretation that The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.

Again, Fighting government tyranny is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Additionally, Fighting government tyranny makes no sense in light of Article III, Section iii. That means the insurrection theory is truly not supported by any serious constitutional scholarship. The concept of fighting government tyranny makes even less sense when you consider that Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

That means we must find our meaning in the text, not outside of it. We can also look for further guidance in the Constitution since the Second Amendment must be read within the framework of the constitution. However, a search of the Constitutional text will find that one constitutional purpose is to "provide for the common defence" and you don't have to read to far into the Constitution to find that stated.

Blackstone stated that, although the words of an enacting clause were 'generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification,' yet if its words, after due analysis, were 'still dubious' or 'ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate,' one might look to the context, which included 'the proeme, or preamble, [which] is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament.' (1 Blackstone at 59-60).

Someone said that the proeme could be read as starting with Because. Which means a better way of reading this is Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, using the text above and the Constitution, The right to "Keep and bear arms" has something to do with "a well regulated militia" since that is mentioned in the text of the Second Amendment and is a purpose tied to "providing for the common defence" which is a purpose stated in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with self-defence since nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment or the Constitution is the phrase "self-defence" present or even hinted at.

We will now turn to the universally accepted authority for legal interpretation at the time of the Constitution's adoption, William Blackstone:

The citation from Blackstone regarding the "proeme, or preamble" is part of a larger section that consists of "observations concerning the interpretation of laws." 1 Blackstone at *58. One of those "observations" was: "BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it." 1 Blackstone at *61.

Blackstone refers to this "when the reason ceases, the law ought to cease" principle several times in the Commentaries, which would seem to indicate that he considered it a fairly important interpretive principle. 2 Blackstone at *390-91 (discussing property interests in tame and domestic animals and noting "But here the reasons of the general rule cease, and 'cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex' [The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases]"), 3 Blackstone at *219 (discussing the law of nuisance, and noting "But, where the reason ceases, the law also ceases with it : therefore it is no nuisance to erect a mill so near mine, as to draw away the custom, unless the miller also intercepts the water."), 4 Blackstone at *3 (noting that some aspects of Britain's criminal law "seem to want revision and amendment" and explaining that "These have chiefly arisen from too scrupulous an adherence to some rules of the antient common law, when the resons have ceased upon which those rules were founded . . . "), 4 Blackstone at *81 (discussing the law of treason, and noting that the "plain intention of this law is to guard the blood royal from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the crown might be rendered dubious: and therefore, when this reason ceases, the law ceases with it . . ."), 4 Blackstone at *330 (discussing the plea of a former attainder, and noting "But to this general rule however, as to all others, there are some exceptions; wherein, cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex.").

Some of these seem to refer to common-law decision making, but he also applies this principle to statutes.

Which means that if the "cause/reason" for the Second Amendment was the "well-regulated militia", then it could be argued that when that reason ceased, the law ought likewise to cease with it. Thus, those who say that the militia portion is unimportant have made it clear that the reason is no longer valid, therefore, the Second Amendment is without effect and is now void.

I know I will have lost the simpler minded readers with the citations from Blackstone, but it is rather simple:

The right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia since no other purpose is mentioned in the text. Additionally, if we look in the Constitution, we find that one of its stated purposes is to "provide for the common defence". So, it would seem far more likely that the right is in some way tied to a "well regulated militia" than some other purpose.

Of course, with my federalism and stare decisis posts, we can see that the supporters of an individual right don't mind playing fast and loose with the law. The scary bit is that there has become a cottage industry of "scholars" who have been foisting this theory on an unquestioning public. No one has asked "how can self-defence be covered when it is not specifically mentioned? Isn't it a tenet of statutory interpretation that the express mention of one thing excludes all others?"

Also, you don't need to go beyond the text of the Constitution to find mention of the militia and Congress' power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia". Again, nothing mentioned in the US Constitution regarding personal defence. However, the language, which is within the Constitution might provide a clue as to the reason for "the right of the People to keep and bear arms". That purpose is to provide that congress continues its obligation to arm the militia according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

One other point that shoots down the individual right interpretation is that there is quite a bit of commentary surrounding the adoption of the Constitution which point to concerns based upon article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private purposes. The fact that private purposes were mentioned in various proposals only adds weight to the fact that they were not included in the text of the Second Amendment.

The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.

This is not English literature, this is law and subject to the rules of legal construction, not grammar.

The meaning of the language of the statute must be determined in light of its objectives, purposes, and practical effect as a whole. If a statute is so ambiguous that a judge cannot make a reasonable construction of its disputed provisions, and a reasonable person could not determine from reading it what the law orders or prohibits, it is void for vagueness because it violates the guarantee of Due Process of Law.

That means if you find the language to be unclear, then the law is void for vagueness.

So, if the reason for the Second Amendment is not:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Then the law is no longer valid.

If this is all unclear, then it is void for vagueness.

Legal Construction and the Second Amendment

In proper legal theory, one has to use the text of a law to determine its meaning and the rules of legal construction and interpreation to divine the meaning. We shall use this as our text for the Second Amendment:

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.

I picked this version because I don't want tiny minds making stupid comments about punctuation even though the four comma version might be better for the point I'm trying to make here. But we will use this version. Given the intellect of some people answering this, it is probably better to use smaller numbers (yes, and what comes after two????). After all, you give them 2+2 and they come up with 5.

Anyway, We are not going to discuss whether this is an individual, collective or civic right. We are going to analyse the sentence that is the Second Amendment. We will also look at it in light of what the Constitution says.

Why is there a "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" using the words above? What is the scope of this right?

If your answer is self-defence, then you are wrong since the phrase self-defence is not plainly written in the text. It is a common legal principle that one cannot infer something when it is not plainly written in the text. It is a principle of statutory interpretation that The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.

Again, Fighting government tyranny is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Additionally, Fighting government tyranny makes no sense in light of Article III, Section iii. That means the insurrection theory is truly not supported by any serious constitutional scholarship. The concept of fighting government tyranny makes even less sense when you consider that Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

That means we must find our meaning in the text, not outside of it. We can also look for further guidance in the Constitution since the Second Amendment must be read within the framework of the constitution. However, a search of the Constitutional text will find that one constitutional purpose is to "provide for the common defence" and you don't have to read to far into the Constitution to find that stated.

Blackstone stated that, although the words of an enacting clause were 'generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification,' yet if its words, after due analysis, were 'still dubious' or 'ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate,' one might look to the context, which included 'the proeme, or preamble, [which] is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament.' (1 Blackstone at 59-60).

Someone said that the proeme could be read as starting with Because. Which means a better way of reading this is Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, using the text above and the Constitution, The right to "Keep and bear arms" has something to do with "a well regulated militia" since that is mentioned in the text of the Second Amendment and is a purpose tied to "providing for the common defence" which is a purpose stated in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with self-defence since nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment or the Constitution is the phrase "self-defence" present or even hinted at.

We will now turn to the universally accepted authority for legal interpretation at the time of the Constitution's adoption, William Blackstone:

The citation from Blackstone regarding the "proeme, or preamble" is part of a larger section that consists of "observations concerning the interpretation of laws." 1 Blackstone at *58. One of those "observations" was: "BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it." 1 Blackstone at *61.

Blackstone refers to this "when the reason ceases, the law ought to cease" principle several times in the Commentaries, which would seem to indicate that he considered it a fairly important interpretive principle. 2 Blackstone at *390-91 (discussing property interests in tame and domestic animals and noting "But here the reasons of the general rule cease, and 'cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex' [The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases]"), 3 Blackstone at *219 (discussing the law of nuisance, and noting "But, where the reason ceases, the law also ceases with it : therefore it is no nuisance to erect a mill so near mine, as to draw away the custom, unless the miller also intercepts the water."), 4 Blackstone at *3 (noting that some aspects of Britain's criminal law "seem to want revision and amendment" and explaining that "These have chiefly arisen from too scrupulous an adherence to some rules of the antient common law, when the resons have ceased upon which those rules were founded . . . "), 4 Blackstone at *81 (discussing the law of treason, and noting that the "plain intention of this law is to guard the blood royal from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the crown might be rendered dubious: and therefore, when this reason ceases, the law ceases with it . . ."), 4 Blackstone at *330 (discussing the plea of a former attainder, and noting "But to this general rule however, as to all others, there are some exceptions; wherein, cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex.").

Some of these seem to refer to common-law decision making, but he also applies this principle to statutes.

Which means that if the "cause/reason" for the Second Amendment was the "well-regulated militia", then it could be argued that when that reason ceased, the law ought likewise to cease with it. Thus, those who say that the militia portion is unimportant have made it clear that the reason is no longer valid, therefore, the Second Amendment is without effect and is now void.

I know I will have lost the simpler minded readers with the citations from Blackstone, but it is rather simple:

The right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia since no other purpose is mentioned in the text. Additionally, if we look in the Constitution, we find that one of its stated purposes is to "provide for the common defence". So, it would seem far more likely that the right is in some way tied to a "well regulated militia" than some other purpose.

Of course, with my federalism and stare decisis posts, we can see that the supporters of an individual right don't mind playing fast and loose with the law. The scary bit is that there has become a cottage industry of "scholars" who have been foisting this theory on an unquestioning public. No one has asked "how can self-defence be covered when it is not specifically mentioned? Isn't it a tenet of statutory interpretation that the express mention of one thing excludes all others?"

Also, you don't need to go beyond the text of the Constitution to find mention of the militia and Congress' power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia". Again, nothing mentioned in the US Constitution regarding personal defence. However, the language, which is within the Constitution might provide a clue as to the reason for "the right of the People to keep and bear arms". That purpose is to provide that congress continues its obligation to arm the militia according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

One other point that shoots down the individual right interpretation is that there is quite a bit of commentary surrounding the adoption of the Constitution which point to concerns based upon article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private purposes. The fact that private purposes were mentioned in various proposals only adds weight to the fact that they were not included in the text of the Second Amendment.

The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.

This is not English literature, this is law and subject to the rules of legal construction, not grammar.

The meaning of the language of the statute must be determined in light of its objectives, purposes, and practical effect as a whole. If a statute is so ambiguous that a judge cannot make a reasonable construction of its disputed provisions, and a reasonable person could not determine from reading it what the law orders or prohibits, it is void for vagueness because it violates the guarantee of Due Process of Law.

That means if you find the language to be unclear, then the law is void for vagueness.

So, if the reason for the Second Amendment is not:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Then the law is no longer valid.

If this is all unclear, then it is void for vagueness.

The Bloody Code

I don't think that Mike knew that amongst my vast qualifications that I am qualified to sit as Second Chair on Capital Murder trials and do Death Penalty Post Conviction Relief advocacy. Not that I have done that many murder trials, but anyway. And since Mike said that one of his interests was the death penalty, it seems appropriate that I do some posts on that topic.

But I am more interested in a historic topic now, the Bloody Code which was the name given to the English legal system from the late 17th century to the early 19th century (in particular, the period between 1688 and 1815). This was not the name used for the legal system at the time, but was given at a later time due to the sharply increased number of crimes that attracted the death penalty.

No of crimes carrying the death penalty
1688	50
1765	160
1815	225

There were many reasons why the English legal system was so harsh at this time. First, the attitudes of the wealthy men who made the law were unsympathetic. They felt that people who committed crimes were sinful, lazy or greedy and deserved little mercy. Secondly, since the rich made the laws they made laws that protected their interests. Any act which threatened their wealth, property or sense of law and order was criminalised and made punishable by death. You could be executed for stealing anything worth more than five shillings (equivalent to approximately £30 today)! Thirdly, the law was harsh to act as a deterrent.

It was thought that people might not commit crimes if they knew that they could be sentenced to death. This was also the reason why executions were public spectacles until the 1860s. The authorities believed that hanging criminals in public would frighten people into obeying the law and refrain from committing crime. From 1816 in Durham, hangings were carried out at the front of the Crown Court with crowds of people coming from far and wide to watch. Some well-off members of the public even hired the balconies of local houses and the Dun Cow pub to get a better view! In London, the hangings were held in Tyburn with thousands turning out. The intention was clearly to act as a deterrent to others to observe the laws--or else.

Some of the crimes carrying the death penalty in the 1700s

stealing horses or sheep destroying turnpike roads cutting down trees pickpocketing goods worth more than one shilling being out at night with a blackened face unmarried mother concealing a stillborn child arson forgery stealing from a rabbit warren murder

Offenders escaped the noose at many points: sometimes the charge was reduced to below capital levels (this could go to ridiculous lengths, as in the charge "Stole £5 value 10 pence"). Juries were reluctant to find people guilty. Judges let offenders off and offenders sometimes agreed to join the army or navy instead. As a last resort, petitions for mercy were often answered. The system therefore held the death threat in readiness, but could show mercy: either way, power of life or death lay with the powerful. Amazingly, fewer people were hanged under the Bloody Code than before it. Numbers of people hanged per year in London and Devon:

	Early 17th century	Early 18th century
London	150	20
Devon	25	3

What was the reason for the reticence to resort to Capital punishment? It is fair to say that the 'Bloody Code' did not work very well. Trials for serious offences sometimes lasted only a few minutes, there was often no chance for the defence to present their case and, to the modern eye, it seems like it was a lottery whether the accused would be found innocent or guilty. As always, it was easier if you were rich. You could afford proper legal representation and persuade the wealthy and famous to act as character witnesses for you.

However, the main problem with the 'Bloody Code' was that juries were often unwilling to find the accused guilty knowing that the punishment was execution. Indeed, so desperate were some judges to secure results that they deliberately under-valued stolen goods so that the accused would no longer face the death penalty. Evidence suggests that despite the 'Bloody Code' fewer people were hanged in the 18th century than previously. It has been estimated that around 200 hangings took place each year in England and Wales at this time.

Other punishments also existed besides the death penalty. In medieval times, criminals could be branded (burning a mark onto the skin), or mutilated (chopping off a limb such as an arm or a leg). The guilty could also be publicly whipped or humilated in the pillory or stocks.

Even those sentenced to death might not be executed at during the time of the Bloody Code. Criminals were often given the chance to avoid death by joining the Army or the Navy or to be transported to the colonies in America and Canada, and later Australia. The Transportation Act of 1718 introduced penal transportation as a punishment. People convicted of capital crimes had their sentences 'commuted' to 14 years or life in the Americas. Convicts found guilty of non-capital crimes received seven-year sentences. Between 1718 and 1776, over 50,000 convicts were transported to Virginia and Maryland in the modern United States. In fact, transportation became a very popular mode of punishment. It has been estimated that over one-third of all criminals convicted between 1788 and 1867 were transported to Australia and Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania).

The other form of punishment which became increasingly popular with the authorities was incarceration in prison. The reason for changes in criminal punishment came from the fact that the ‘Bloody Code’ was arbitrary and savage and that the reformers’ stance was beginning to be seen as the morally just position. Penal reform began with the abolition of capital statutes urged by Romilly and Mackintosh and largely carried out by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell when Home Secretaries in the 1820s and 1830s. It gathered pace as the government took an increasing role in the organisation and supervision of prisons with the opening of Millbank in 1816 and Pentonville in 1842, with the creation of the prison Inspectorate in 1835 and the centralisation of the whole system under the Home Office in 1877.

In 1823 the Judgement of Death Act 1823 made the mandatory death penalty discretionary for all crimes except treason and murder. Gradually during the middle of the 19th century the number of capital offences was reduced, and by 1861 was down to five. These were murder (suspended 1965, abolished 1969), piracy (1998), arson in a naval dockyard (1971), espionage (1981) and high treason (1998).

The London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, promoted the preventive role of police as a deterrent to urban crime and disorder.

My real reason for mentioning the Bloody Code is that it would have been known to the Founders at the time of the War for Independence. It is the background against which the phrase. "no cruel or unusual punishments" originated. Additionally, it was a reason for the due process guarantees found in the Bill of Rights. Yet, we are seeing a culture that would return to the culture of the Bloody Code, or worse in the United States? Why?

See also:
Wikipedia--Bloody Code
Crime and Punishment in Durham > The Bloody Code
The National Archives--Crime and Punishment
Women under the “Bloody Code”
Punishment and the Bloody Code