Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University. / Vita. Bibliography: p. [101]-103.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University. / Vita. Bibliography: p. [101]-103.

Thesis (doctoral)--Columbia University. / Reproduction of original from Harvard Law School Library. Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis explores the creation of the Second Amendment and how it has been interpreted over time. The purpose of this thesis is to understand present-day debates over gun control and offer an interpretation of the right that best suits the modern era. By analyzing the history of gun ownership in the United States, it is clear that the intention of the Second Amendment was to extend the right to the individual and should not be limited to collective use. As the Bill of Rights was extended to protect the people from state governments, the history of states’ rights in the regulation of firearms should be taken into account. With a country divided in their views on gun control policy, states should maintain the power to regulate arms, with federal courts intervening only when legislation is particularly radical. This thesis offers an interpretation of the Second Amendment best suited for the nation on both historical and practical by investigating the most prominent debates today: individual vs. collective rights, federal vs. states’ rights. With all things considered, this thesis concludes the most suitable interpretation of the Second Amendment for the people is: a right of the people protected, as individuals, from federal infringement, and regulated by the states, that are checked by the federal courts only when deemed necessary.

The Constitution of the United State has never been a document with a fixed and determinable meaning and demanded continual reinterpretation. During the early republic, legal and political battles over constitutional meaning were commonplace, leading to claims of disloyalty as well as threats of violence. Challenges to actions of the federal government often were done in the name of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and the “Principles of ‘98.” Reflecting a strand of mainstream political thought, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were employed by Pennsylvanians, who militarily resisted federal efforts to enforce a Supreme Court decision, by New Englanders, who effectively nullified certain federal laws during the War of 1812, and by South Carolinians, who attempted to nullify a federal tariff. Authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, in 1798, the Resolutions offered differing visions of the nation’s founding. Jefferson interpreted the Constitution as a contract between state governments, akin to a treaty between independent nations. Thus, unconstitutional actions by the federal government were a breach of the compact, and each state had a right to nullify the offending action. For Madison, the thirteen peoples of the several states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity, were the parties to the compact. Madison did not interpret the Constitution as a contract or treaty and did not deem every breach of the compact as justifying nullification by the people. Only a majority of the people could nullify actions of the federal government.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen, 1906. / Includes bibliographical references (p. vii-x).

This paper examines the tension between states' rights and rights of the individual in the jurisprudence of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Through analysis of O'Connor's personal biography and a series of opinions written over her tenure on the Supreme Court, I find that O'Connor reached an incremental balance between the sometimes conflicting goals of protecting the rights of the states and individuals, resulting in a unique rights-based approach to federalism. / Constitutionalism, federalism, and expressive democracy -- Justic O'Connor and federalism -- The state and the individual -- Analysis. / Department of Political Science

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia Southern University, 2008. / "A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts." Directed by James Woods. ETD. Includes bibliographical references (p. 90-92)