choose one Supreme Court case from either Warren, Burger, Rehnquist or Roberts Courts. This means you must pick a cased decided after 1953, provided that the case has not been overturned by another case, constitutional amendment or statement from the Court. For instance, you may NOT write a paper on Plessy v Ferguson (1896) because that case was overturned by Brown v Board of Education (1954). Additionally you cant write your paper on the Dred Scott decision (1857) because it was overturned by the 14th amendment. Finally, you cant write your paper about Korematsu v US (1944) because the Court expressly overturned the case in 2018. You will write a dissenting opinion on the case in question. Your task will be to write a convincing argument to explain why the Supreme Courts decision was, in your opinion, incorrect
Sample Solution
Dissenting Opinion: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Case: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Majority Opinion: The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and a requirement to register all firearms in the city. The Court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to service in a militia.
Full Answer Section
Dissenting Argument:
While I acknowledge the historical significance of the Second Amendment, I believe the majority opinion misinterprets its application in today's society. The Second Amendment was drafted in a very different era, when well-regulated militias were essential for national defense. The Founders could not have foreseen the proliferation of modern firearms or the devastating impact of gun violence in our communities.
The Right to Bear Arms is Not Absolute:
The majority opinion fails to adequately consider the limitations on the Second Amendment. Just as other fundamental rights are not absolute, the right to bear arms can be reasonably restricted to protect public safety. For example, the government can regulate the types of firearms available to civilians, implement background checks to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, and enact reasonable gun storage regulations.
The Public Safety Burden:
The majority opinion downplays the significant public safety concerns associated with widespread gun ownership. Gun violence is a national epidemic, claiming countless lives each year. Easy access to firearms increases the risk of accidental shootings, suicides, and mass shootings. The District of Columbia's handgun ban was a legitimate attempt to address this public health crisis.
The Militia Clause:
The Second Amendment right is explicitly tied to the "well-regulated Militia." The majority opinion largely ignores this crucial aspect. In the absence of a well-regulated militia system, the individual right to bear arms becomes less compelling. Today's gun ownership is far removed from the citizen-soldiers envisioned by the Founders.
Unintended Consequences:
The majority decision opens the door for a flood of litigation challenging reasonable gun control measures across the country. This will undoubtedly hinder efforts to address gun violence at the state and local levels. The potential for increased gun violence outweighs the benefits of unfettered gun ownership for civilians.
Conclusion:
The Second Amendment protects an important right, but it must be balanced against the compelling need for public safety. The majority opinion strikes the wrong balance. The District of Columbia's handgun ban was a reasonable regulation that could have saved lives. By striking it down, the Court has made our communities less safe.