mardi 27 mai 2014

Comment la NRA a reformulé le deuxième amendement


Je n'ai absolument aucune compétence de juriste, mais il est clair dans mon esprit que les "Founding founders" n'entrevoyaient pas le droit de posséder des armes comme on l'exerce maintenant. La Cour suprême s'est déjà prononcée sur différentes interprétations du deuxième amendement, mais le type d'armes en circulation est rarement remis en question. A-t-on vraiment besoin d'autant d'armes et, surtout, d'armes de ce calibre? Doit-on en porter à l'école ou à l'église? Au resto et à l'épicerie? retour sur l'influence de la NRA.

 "A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

 Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

L'article au complet:
  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html?ml=po_r#.U4S7GPl5PAx

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire

Les Tours de Laliberté migrent: rejoignez-moi sur le site du Journal de Québec et du Journal de Montréal

Depuis un certain temps je me demandais comment faire évoluer mon petit carnet web. La réponse m'est parvenue par le biais d'u...