The ABA Journal has this:
Akhil is right. The Second Amendment was actually the most talked about reason for applying the bill of rights to the states, but it is obviously one of the few parts of the bill of rights that hasn't been applied to the states.
University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson told the New York Times that the case could present a dilemma for some conservative justices who scoffed at incorporation arguments in the past. Because of the touchy issues, he says he would be surprised if the Supreme Court agrees to hear new cases on the issue.
Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar told the Times that incorporation fell out of favor after the 1960s, but it’s being resurrected by liberal scholars. Most of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states under liberal Warren Court rulings that found the 14th Amendment required incorporation. One exception is the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, which has not been applied to the states.
“The precedents are now supportive of incorporation of nearly every provision of the Bill of Rights,” Amar told the Times. “Now what’s odd is that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states.” . . . .
Akhil is right. The Second Amendment was actually the most talked about reason for applying the bill of rights to the states, but it is obviously one of the few parts of the bill of rights that hasn't been applied to the states.
Will the second amendment be applied to the states through the citizenship clause?
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
