Nov 29 2009
Reviewing the Amici
It’s impossible to summarize all the amicus briefs that have been filed in support of our position, but we wanted to point out at least a few that appear to be significantly helpful or illuminating. It’s not an exhaustive list, and we may revisit this topic in the future. Please note: We’ve worked hard to encourage amicus filers to cooperate with each other, avoid duplication of effort, and refrain from filing briefs that do not actually help the Court decide the case. But ultimately, we do not control the amici and have nothing to do with the writing of their briefs. If anyone has an issue with a particular amicus brief, please take it up with that brief’s authors.
Nothing demonstrates the incredible range of support we enjoy from across the ideological spectrum as much as the Constitutional Accountability Center’s brief on behalf of an all-star team of constitutional scholars. It’s an honor to have such support.
Additional insight into the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning is provided by excellent briefs from Dean John Eastman and former AG Ed Meese on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; Timothy Sandefeur, Ilya Shapiro, and Bob Levy on behalf of Cato and Pacific Legal Foundation; Clark Neily at the Institute for Justice; and Clint Bolick and Nick Dranias at the Goldwater Institute.
Thirty-eight states, led by Texas, welcome application of the Second Amendment to their legal systems. A substantial bipartisan majority in Congress agrees.
Finally (at least for now), Erik Jaffe’s brief for the Calguns Foundation explores some of the problems with the flawed scholarship of Charles Fairman and Raoul Berger. For much of the twentieth century, their views of the Fourteenth Amendment were accepted without challenge. But later scholars, including Michael Kent Curtis, Akhil Reed Amar, Richard Aynes, and Brian Wildenthal, have debunked Fairman and Berger. It helps to have a brief touching upon the history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s academic treatment.
