Constitutional Law

An odd ad hominem attack on Heller

Over at History News Network. If this is the best the critics can do... it's pathetic. It reduces to undocumented assurances that Heller got it al wrong, and that the individual rights postiion can't be right -- why the first almost-recent (1960) article on it was by a non-historian in a law review.

"or a new theory in any field to have integrity, especially in a subject as well-trodden as the Constitution, it must be subjected to the intense scrutiny, before publication, found in any discipline. But this article, like nearly all others in the field of law, was never submitted to peer review by subject matter experts, the gold standard for evaluating the worthiness of new research and ideas in every other field of study."

I'm glad this "peer review" did such a good job with Bellesiles. At least law reviews look up your footnotes to ensure the author isn't blowing suspensions of carbon particulate up their nether regions. I gather that Bellesiles' peers thought that step not necessary to their review.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on June 27, 2008 (boomark / email).