Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> ACS Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Constitutional Law
: ACS BlogGroup Urges Federal Court To Revive Privileges or Immunities Clause
In a seemingly surprising move, the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) has urged a federal appeals court to find that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms from state infringement. The group, in a Text & History Blog post, however, notes that the only argument it makes centers on reviving the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. The case before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involves appeals of lower federal court decisions that the 14th Amendment does not protect the individual right to bear arms from state laws or actions regulating guns. CAC argues in its brief filed on behalf of leading constitutional scholars, like Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin, that the Privileges or Immunities Clause should be reconsidered by the Supreme Court as guaranteeing “substantive fundamental rights.” Additionally, the case gives the group a chance to “bolster progressive efforts to ensure protection of a broad range of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
The group’s brief also “brings to the fore the surprisingly progressive Reconstruction history of the right to bear arms. It shows that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to constitutionally protect this right against state infringement, in large part because they wanted the newly freed slaves to have the means to protect themselves, their families and their property against well-armed former rebels.”
In an interview with ACS, Doug Kendall, CAC’s founder and president, explained that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended to be the Constitution’s pivotal protector of fundamental rights, but was essentially stripped of its meaning by an 1873 Supreme Court ruling. Kendall says it’s long past time for the clause to be returned to its rightful place in constitutional jurisprudence. Video of the interview is available here.
Full post as published by ACS Blog on February 06, 2009 (boomark / email).
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Compass Group
Faces Federal Race Discrimination Class Action
Requip
alleging behavior urges users to gamble, shop, and eat compulsively.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Meta Financial Group, Inc CASH Securities Fraud
Meta Financial Group, Inc CASH
Taylor Bean Faces Federal WARN Class Action
Taylor Bean Federal Employment Class Action Filed

Report on the Privileges or Immunities Clause
The Second Adoption of the Free Exercise Clause: Religious Exemptions Under the Fourteenth Amendment
How incorporating Heller against the states undermines the Second Amendment
Early Cases - Privileges and Immunities
Klukowski on Incorporating the Second Amendment








