The constitution is a complex document that is overly powerful. The Judicial arm of the government has the mandate to oversee that the records, interpretation, and application of the constitution are carried out correctly through the court systems. Notably, the Judiciary handles a wide array of cases that take different forms and models. Sometimes, the cases present new phenomena, situations, and circumstances that have never been experienced before. As such, juggling between the law, pragmatism, and other legal considerations possess a challenge to many legal officials. Thomas argues that the interpretation of the law can be a tricky affair and it often takes more than one perspective to be able to have a valid understanding of the law (Thomas, 2011). The District of Columbia versus Heller case of June 26, 2008, is a revelation of how the law functions and the importance of consistency together with a multidimensional approach to legal matters.
In the case of District of Columbia v Heller , several issues were raised with the central one being the right of citizens to possess firearms for personal protection as stipulated by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Under the District of Columbia, the possession of a handgun is illegal (US Supreme Court, 2008). In addition, carrying an unregistered firearm as well as registering it in the District of Columbia is prohibited. Therefore, no one is permitted to carry a handgun without a license. However, there is a provision that the chief of police can issue licenses for one year. Dick Heller was a police officer with the authorization to carry a handgun during his time on duty. However, after applying for a certificate to enable him to keep a handgun at home, he was denied. Heller afterward petitioned at the Federal District Court, but the case was dismissed. He further appealed at the Court of Appeals and the later the Supreme Court.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Even though several decisions are associated with this case, the discussion will be based on the last decision made in the Supreme Court, which was not unanimous. Heller won the case narrowly by a five to four vote (Rose, 2008). During the argument of the hearing of the case, concurring and dissenting opinions were submitted. First, there was concurrence on the existence, validity, and importance of the Second Amendment of the Constitution as well as an agreement on the need for every citizen to feel safe and secure. However, dissenting opinions came when the discussion shifted to the importance of every citizen to ensure their security and safety. One side held that the Second Amendment was an instigation of the responsibility that every citizen has regarding their security and safety. In contrast, others were of the opinion that the police and other security officials were responsible for ensuring the safety of citizens.
From the case facts and the way it was handled, two main styles of interpretation were applied. The first one is textualism or textual decoding, which was used to break down the Second Amendment and understand the elements on which it was instituted (Huscroft & Miller, 2011). The second method sought to establish the original meaning whereby an argument was put up to reveal the motive behind the Second Amendment (Murrill, 2018). In essence, it was contended that the Amendment was put in place for all citizens to feel secure and safe, which is essentially the original meaning that was attributed to the amendment. Although not all times, knowing the background of the Justice who wrote an opinion regarding a case can help in understanding why they emphasized certain provisions. Indeed, some personal attributes and qualities are associated with a person’s views. However, this does not always apply to all Justices.
References
Huscroft, G. & Miller, B. W. (2011). The Challenge of Originalism : Theories of Constitutional Interpretation.
Murrill, B. J. (2018). Modes of Constitutional Interpretation . Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45129.pdf
Rose, V. (2008). District of Columbia v Heller . OLR Research report. Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm
Supreme Court of the United States (2008). District of Columbia v Heller . Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dcvheller.html
Thomas, R. K. (2011). Selected Theories of Constitutional Interpretation . Congressional Research Service.
