Nonincorporation: The bill of rights after Mcdonald V. Chicago

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Veryfew rights in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the states.In McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which the Court previously had decided did not apply against states, was incorporated.This decision lefi only three, what this Article terms, "nonincorporated" rights-the Fifih Amendment grand jury right, the Sixth Amendment criminaljury unanimity requirement, and the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right-rights that the Court previously decided do not apply against the states that remain not incorporated.After the decision to incorporate the right to bear arms, an important unaddressed question with far-reaching implications is whether nonincorporation is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.Scholars to date have viewed the Bill of Rights exclusively through theories of incorporation, including the theory of selective incorporation under which incorporation occurs if a fundamental right exists.This Article is the first to view incorporation from the perspective of a theory of nonincorporation.This theory could be simply the opposite of selective incorporation-that a right is not fundamental-or, it could be, that the Court has not incorporated rights for some other reason.This Article sets forth possible theories of nonincorporation, both prior to and after McDonald, and exploring their viability, concludes that no nonincorporation theory is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.The resulting incorporation of the nonincorporated rights would change the administration of justice in the states and also would matte the Court's theory of selective incorporation more justifiable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)159-204
Number of pages46
JournalNotre Dame Law Review
Volume88
Issue number1
StatePublished - Nov 1 2012

Fingerprint

bill
amendment
jurisprudence
administration of justice
fundamental right
Supreme Court

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Nonincorporation : The bill of rights after Mcdonald V. Chicago. / Thomas, Suja A.

In: Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 1, 01.11.2012, p. 159-204.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{93f934029eac4840a27213694eacda11,
title = "Nonincorporation: The bill of rights after Mcdonald V. Chicago",
abstract = "Veryfew rights in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the states.In McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which the Court previously had decided did not apply against states, was incorporated.This decision lefi only three, what this Article terms, {"}nonincorporated{"} rights-the Fifih Amendment grand jury right, the Sixth Amendment criminaljury unanimity requirement, and the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right-rights that the Court previously decided do not apply against the states that remain not incorporated.After the decision to incorporate the right to bear arms, an important unaddressed question with far-reaching implications is whether nonincorporation is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.Scholars to date have viewed the Bill of Rights exclusively through theories of incorporation, including the theory of selective incorporation under which incorporation occurs if a fundamental right exists.This Article is the first to view incorporation from the perspective of a theory of nonincorporation.This theory could be simply the opposite of selective incorporation-that a right is not fundamental-or, it could be, that the Court has not incorporated rights for some other reason.This Article sets forth possible theories of nonincorporation, both prior to and after McDonald, and exploring their viability, concludes that no nonincorporation theory is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.The resulting incorporation of the nonincorporated rights would change the administration of justice in the states and also would matte the Court's theory of selective incorporation more justifiable.",
author = "Thomas, {Suja A}",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "88",
pages = "159--204",
journal = "Notre Dame Law Review",
issn = "0745-3515",
publisher = "Notre Dame Law School",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nonincorporation

T2 - The bill of rights after Mcdonald V. Chicago

AU - Thomas, Suja A

PY - 2012/11/1

Y1 - 2012/11/1

N2 - Veryfew rights in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the states.In McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which the Court previously had decided did not apply against states, was incorporated.This decision lefi only three, what this Article terms, "nonincorporated" rights-the Fifih Amendment grand jury right, the Sixth Amendment criminaljury unanimity requirement, and the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right-rights that the Court previously decided do not apply against the states that remain not incorporated.After the decision to incorporate the right to bear arms, an important unaddressed question with far-reaching implications is whether nonincorporation is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.Scholars to date have viewed the Bill of Rights exclusively through theories of incorporation, including the theory of selective incorporation under which incorporation occurs if a fundamental right exists.This Article is the first to view incorporation from the perspective of a theory of nonincorporation.This theory could be simply the opposite of selective incorporation-that a right is not fundamental-or, it could be, that the Court has not incorporated rights for some other reason.This Article sets forth possible theories of nonincorporation, both prior to and after McDonald, and exploring their viability, concludes that no nonincorporation theory is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.The resulting incorporation of the nonincorporated rights would change the administration of justice in the states and also would matte the Court's theory of selective incorporation more justifiable.

AB - Veryfew rights in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the states.In McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which the Court previously had decided did not apply against states, was incorporated.This decision lefi only three, what this Article terms, "nonincorporated" rights-the Fifih Amendment grand jury right, the Sixth Amendment criminaljury unanimity requirement, and the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right-rights that the Court previously decided do not apply against the states that remain not incorporated.After the decision to incorporate the right to bear arms, an important unaddressed question with far-reaching implications is whether nonincorporation is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.Scholars to date have viewed the Bill of Rights exclusively through theories of incorporation, including the theory of selective incorporation under which incorporation occurs if a fundamental right exists.This Article is the first to view incorporation from the perspective of a theory of nonincorporation.This theory could be simply the opposite of selective incorporation-that a right is not fundamental-or, it could be, that the Court has not incorporated rights for some other reason.This Article sets forth possible theories of nonincorporation, both prior to and after McDonald, and exploring their viability, concludes that no nonincorporation theory is defensible under the Court's jurisprudence.The resulting incorporation of the nonincorporated rights would change the administration of justice in the states and also would matte the Court's theory of selective incorporation more justifiable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873888425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873888425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84873888425

VL - 88

SP - 159

EP - 204

JO - Notre Dame Law Review

JF - Notre Dame Law Review

SN - 0745-3515

IS - 1

ER -