Ever since the Court issued its decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008, many legal historians have found themselves in the odd position of feeling compelled to defend their methodology against triumphalist congratulations from those outside the field. In the wake of a decision that found both Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens invoking the Glorious Revolution, early colonial regulations, and the ratification debates, surely legal historians of all persuasions could agree that the insistence of both the plurality and the dissenters on speaking the legal-historical argot was a victory for the methodology. Even if one disagreed with the justices’ conclusions, perhaps legal historians ought to be grateful that the battle was joined on the field of history. In short, shouldn’t we see Heller as the moment when the Court finally joined us in the archives?Her answer, here.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
LaCroix on Legal History in McDonald
Alison LaCroix has blogs on "the Use and Misuse of Legal History in McDonald" on the University of Chicago's Law Faculty Blog. She writes: