"This reading has the advantage of fitting plausibly with the civic republican tradition that greatly influenced the founders. Republicans believed that a professional or 'standing' army could endanger liberty because of its separateness from the people. From the standpoint of civic republicanism, an armed and engaged citizenry was the best way of protecting the national defense. In this sense, the right to keep and bear arms might even be seen as a sibling to the right to free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Like the latter rights, the former was an important way of promoting self-government, and of reducing the risk that national officials would act on the basis of interests adverse to those of the citizenry itself. On this view, 'We the People' would be sovereign insofar as we could speak out, petition the national government, and defend ourselves. And for committed republicans, participation in the militia is not merely a right, it is a civic duty as well. (There are implications for the idea of national service.)"
In The New Republic, Cass R. Sunstein wades into the murky depths of the Second Amendment.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment