Mimesis Law
20 September 2017

Rights Are Bundled, Not A La Carte

Dec. 8, 2015 (Mimesis Law) — I like my HBO and my AMC and my FX.  But Discovery? History?  TBS? I could take them or leave them.  And if my kids couldn’t stare at Disney all day – well, that would be an improvement.  That’s why I’m happy to hear that some cable companies are moving towards a-la-carte pricing, so I can pick and choose my channels and not pay for ones I never use.  Americans are picky beasts and consumer choice is good for innovation.

Constitutional rights aren’t like that.

Constitutional rights come in a bundle.  You may not see the whole bundle; you may only see the particular stick you are holding at any given moment, like free speech or the right to counsel or the right to be free from unreasonable searches.  But the bundle is there, and the thread holding it all together is thin.  If you pull on your favorite stick too hard trying to separate it, the whole thing falls apart.

This week one stick – the Second Amendment right to bear arms – is illustrating the nature of the bundle.  In the wake of the horrific San Bernardino shootings, many politicians and commentators called for gun control.  In most cases, the call wasn’t a request for sober analysis of what sort of restrictions are consistent with the post-Heller Second Amendment.  Rather, the calls were of a baby-with-the-bathwater variety:  they were assertions that we can’t afford a right to bear arms when it leads to tragedies like this one.  Chief among the alarm-sounders was the President of the United States, who advocated forbidding people on the shadowy no-fly list from buying guns:

Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

The President’s call to action was classic a la carte thinking:  he was suggesting you could pluck one obviously ridiculous proposed right (the right of terrorists to buy dangerous weapons) from an interconnected bundle of rights in the name of danger.  But that stick is connected to the rest of the sticks.  First, bear in mind that “semi-automatic weapons” include nearly every modern handgun on the market – it just means a gun that loads the next bullet into the chamber after you fire it, so you can fire a shot every time you pull the trigger.  It just sounds scary to some people.  The President is therefore talking about almost everything except for bolt-action rifles and very old revolvers.

Second, bear in mind that the “no-fly list” is not the result of due process. It’s a mostly unreviewable, often arbitrary, sometimes-incompetently-amassed list of people suspected of a wide variety of conduct, or people with the same names as others suspected of bad conduct.  It’s based on questionable science like ”predictive assessments,” is highly susceptible to bad-faith classification of peaceful protestors as dangerous, and it’s near-impossible to get off of it.  In short, if it’s used to deny any protected right, it’s a nightmare.

But the President, and other gun-control advocates, think that you can deny this one (unpopular-in-some-circles) right from this one cobbled-together group without threatening other rights.  They’re wrong. That’s not how rights work.  Rights are bound together by the thread of  precedent and process – by the way we treat any given right under scary circumstances, and by the methodology we use to make exceptions to rights when it’s popular or expedient.

To see this process in action, look no further than Emily Badger at the Washington Post explaining why Second Amendment rights aren’t absolute.  Post-Heller caselaw is sparse; courts haven’t yet identified the exact contours of the individual right to bear arms and its permissible exceptions.  So Ms. Badger uses precedent.  You know the Second Amendment isn’t absolute because the First Amendment isn’t absolute, she reasons.  She cites the canard that you can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater – thus relying on Justice Holmes contemptible and subsequently abandoned apologia for jailing draft protestors.  The Fourth Amendment isn’t absolute because you can be stopped at drunk-driving checkpoints, she says – thus invoking a controversial 6-3 Supreme Court decision that lets the constabulary stop citizens without individualized suspicion.

Your right to private property can be limited by eminent domain, Ms. Badger continues – perhaps thinking of a different bitterly divided Court allowing the state to confiscate private homes for the good of crony private developers, only to see them abandoned to slow decay when said cronies decamp.  In arguing that limits on Second Amendment rights are reasonable, Ms. Badger has neatly illustrated how limiting rights you don’t like may later be used to limit rights you do like.

Or, if you prefer, consider the dialogue surrounding GOP candidate Donald Trump’s incendiary proposal to halt Muslims from entering the country – perhaps even citizens.  Trump and his supporters drew further ire by suggesting that FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans set a precedent.  But here’s the point: he’s right.  It did set a precedent.  That decision about the rights of a group of despised and suspected people under frightening circumstances set a precedent for future situations, one that has often been invoked to justify a wide variety of deprivation of rights.  Depriving right X from group Y makes it easier to deprive group A of right B, even three-quarters of a century later.

Few of us are innocent of trying to pull apart the bundle of rights.  Criminal defense attorneys like me fight tooth and nail for Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights but can be wobbly on traditionally “conservative” rights like the Second Amendment.  Conservatives can champion property rights and the Second Amendment, but shrug when the state wants to hold a “suspected terrorist” without anything resembling due process.  Liberals can decry police deprivation of rights and the unfairness of the criminal justice system – until a defendant is accused of a hate crime or sexual assault.

We act as if one scenario doesn’t matter to the other.  But it does.  I’m not saying that all rights are absolute.  They aren’t.  But when we’re faced with a proposed limitation on any right, we must bear in mind the risk to all of them.  We’re not just defending the stick.  We’re defending the bundle.

Ken White is a civil and criminal litigator at Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles. He blogs about law atPopehat.com.

19 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

*

*

Comments for Fault Lines posts are closed here. You can leave comments for this post at the new site, faultlines.us

  • poster
    9 December 2015 at 1:34 pm - Reply

    The Obama speech link is broken.

    • shg
      9 December 2015 at 2:07 pm - Reply

      Fixed, thanks.

  • BWO Partner Ken White Guest Posts At Mimesis Law | Brown, White & Osborn
    9 December 2015 at 1:57 pm - Reply

    […] Today I’ve got a guest post at Mimesis Law about how our constitutional rights are interconnected. […]

  • David
    10 December 2015 at 12:28 am - Reply

    As a hunter gun owner and former NRA person that’s now a father, I couldnt disagree more. It’s not infringing your rights to hears arms to limit a magazine capacity. Or to have unibersal background checks and if you are deemed unsafe to ride on a plane you should not be allowed to own a gun.

    • Chris Broekhof
      10 December 2015 at 1:40 pm - Reply

      You didn’t read the part about not being safe to fly on a plane is not actually about you being unsafe or unfit to board one. Indeed, a simple mistake in name, because 7 billion people on the planet are occasionally going to share one, or protesting something you consider important are good enough to get you on the list, and the process to rectify this “mistake” is so terribly long, and expensive as to be almost pointless.

      You’re not going to be a hunter much longer if the quality of choosing who does, and doesn’t get to own a gun is based on that. How many trained vets who show more responsibility then anyone else would fail this test?

      And what does being a father have to do with it? Does it impart some special knowledge? Because I know a lot of fathers who wouldn’t give up their guns out of fear that they couldn’t defend their families. Those are the people you put limits on. The criminals will come with big magazines attached to guns they didn’t have to even apply for a background check to get. Where I live a vast majority of crime is committed with stolen weapons, but because a few nuts go crazy and grab a legal one that’s become the problem? Since when did these lone wolf’s become the face of violence in this nation? Instead of the inner city gangs, and organized crime?

      But, if after decades of failure with lists, being a father, or a previous NRA member, or a hunter somehow is supposed to prove to me that this one works then that explains why we haven’t solved this problem.

    • Christopher Best
      10 December 2015 at 9:54 pm - Reply

      As a writer and former academic who’s now a father, I think it’s not infringing your rights if we were to change the law so you weren’t allowed to publicly disagree with the officer of the court because your name is on a list. Would you be okay with that? It’s only affecting people on my list. No big deal.

  • Dogma U: Only Virgins Need Apply | Simple Justice
    10 December 2015 at 7:17 am - Reply

    […] permission to believe in dogma, no matter how silly it may seem to others. It’s part of our bundle of rights, and you’re no more entitled to “thought police” someone else than they are […]

  • Fool On The Hill | Simple Justice
    22 December 2015 at 10:08 am - Reply

    […] offering me a column.  At least Ken got a LA Times op-ed the other day, based on his post for Fault Lines. It’s something, even if Jessica Valenti still towers over us standing on top of the […]

  • 2015 Jdog Memorial Best Criminal Law Blawg Post | Simple Justice
    1 January 2016 at 9:12 am - Reply

    […] a number of posts that made the decision this year extremely challenging.  Ken White’s post, Rights Are Bundles, Not A La Carte, was a magnificent explanation of how the trend toward picking constitutional rights as if they […]

  • President Obama And The Rhetoric Of Rights | Popehat
    5 January 2016 at 2:14 pm - Reply

    […] rights matter. The way we talk about them matters. You can't engage in unprincipled analysis of one amendment and expect it won't impact our rights und… The President's rhetoric was moving and heartfelt and, as a matter of what policy should be, ably […]

  • The Price Of Mistrust | Simple Justice
    8 January 2016 at 6:55 am - Reply

    […] no countervailing interest worthy of discussion. The Second Amendment doesn’t interest them, bundle of rights or not. Personal protection is deemed a macho sham, as they believe a gun owner to be more likely to be […]

  • If It’s A Loophole, It Must Be Closed | Simple Justice
    19 January 2016 at 7:41 am - Reply

    […] is that “bundle of rights” problem, that contention that respect for the rights the New York Times favors requires the […]

  • How A Shoddy Distracted Driving Bill Could Let Cops Take Your Cellphone
    20 January 2016 at 8:11 am - Reply

    […] Ken White explains at Fault Lines why proposed laws threatening Constitutional rights need extra scrutiny. […]

  • An Argument For Repealing The Second Amendment
    8 February 2016 at 9:17 am - Reply

    […] at Fault Lines as Ken White from time to time, wrote a popular piece on the 2nd Amendment entitled Rights Are Bundled, Not A La Carte. Ken made a brilliantly incisive point about the interconnectedness of our rights and the inherent […]

  • Ray Kelly: Disinvited (But Still Full Of Shit) | Simple Justice
    30 April 2016 at 7:43 am - Reply

    […] But the “disinvitation” of Ray Kelly being wrong doesn’t make what Ray Kelly has to say right.  Let liars like Kelly speak. Then counter their lies with the facts, the numbers, the law.  Honor the First Amendment to the Constitution, but honor the rest of the Constitution as well.  It comes as a bundle, not a la carte. […]

  • Bringing Down The House | Simple Justice
    23 June 2016 at 7:26 am - Reply

    […] Heller and McDonald, cannot be ignored, no matter what my feelings about guns may be.  Ken White called it “a bundle,” where we either accept the premise that the Bill of Rights is worthy of respect as the […]

  • Legalize Child Porn? | Popehat
    17 January 2017 at 4:58 pm - Reply

    […] you've got that exposed end. And, you've got a taste for it. And then another slice. And another. And it doesn't take long until you've eaten the whole thing. (Ok, the analogy breaks down because soppressata is meant to be eaten… but you get my […]

  • If Chicago Won’t Learn, Alan Gura Will Make It
    20 January 2017 at 9:40 am - Reply

    […] a good outcome regardless of how you feel about guns. As Fault Lines contributor Ken White puts it, rights are bundled, not a la carte. They rise and fall together. From a constitutional perspective, it’d be every bit as deplorable […]

  • Debate: America Is In The Middle Of A War Against Freedom of Speech
    13 February 2017 at 9:20 am - Reply

    […] if we have to use that stupid word “offensive,” it is those who cherish that bundle of constitutional rights that are very much offended by how these hissy fits continue to silence speech, regardless of […]