When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "".
In response to a question from Steve H, I wrote up a few items re the Joyce Foundation, funder of the Chicago Kent Symposium on the Second Amendment. The articles from this Symposium, published in the Chicago Kent Law Review, were cited by both the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals in their recent Second Amendment rulings.
a) A quick check of the Internet shows some interesting information.
The Foundation's web site indicates that the Joyce Foundation gives $millions each year in grants to address "Gun Violence". See http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html .
For example, the site indicates that the Joyce gave:
a) $800,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2002 ("To support research, public education, communication, and advocacy efforts promoting public health oriented gun violence prevention policies."),
b) $1,200,000 to the University of Pennsylvania in 2001 ("To strengthen the Firearm Injury Center and to expand the Medical Professionals as Advocates Program. "),
c) $1,000,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2000 ("To support its efforts to promote public health-oriented gun policy through research, public education, coalition building, and advocacy ").
The Joyce's site indicates that it gave $84,000 in 1999 to the Chicago Kent College of Law (at the Illnois Institute of Technology). The grant was "For a symposium and law review on the Second Amendment" . The Chicago Kent Second Amendment Symposium was held in April 2000 and the papers submitted at the Chicago Kent Symposium were published as an edition of the Chicago Kent Law Review -- See
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/Articles/76.1/contents76.1.htm.
Given the size of the Joyce grant, I assume the honoraria for the eleven presenters consisted of more than coffee and stale donuts.
b) Note how Carl T Bogus described the purpose of this Symposium in his introductory lecture ("The History and
Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship", page 24):
"With generous support from the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-Kent Law Review sponsored this Symposium to take a fresh look at the Second Amendment and, particularly, the collective right theory. This is not, therefore, a balanced symposium. No effort was made to include the individual right point of view. Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium.106"
c) As I've noted, one of the articles was submitted by Michael
Bellesiles and is a slightly re-written version
of Chapter Seven of Arming America. What is hilarious-- in view of Bellesiles' resignation, the revocation of the Bancroft prize, and Knopf's recent announcement that Arming America publication will be halted (and returned copies pulped) -- is that the other Chicago-Kent articles cite Bellesiles' work extensively, as can be seen by searching the articles for keyword "Bellesiles".
Plus the Chicago Kent articles have been issued in hardback under the title "The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms " --edited by the professor with the unfortunate name of "Carl T Bogus". See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565846990/qid=1042690233/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/002-8899428-5123204?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
You just can't buy legal scholarship like that -- although my opinion is that the Joyce Foundation certainly did try.
d) Another funny aspect is that the Violence Policy Center (VPC)
--recipient , remember, of million dollar grants from the Joyce -- promotes the Chicago Kent articles without noting that the articles were funded by the very same Foundation that funds the VPC "To coordinate a national media strategy on gun violence".
For example, in it's Dec 5, 2002 Press Release on the Ninth Court's ruling (that the American people have no Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms"), the VPC noted the following:
" Citing cutting-edge scholarship such as the 2000 Chicago Kent Law Review—Symposium on the Second Amendment: Fresh Looks, the Silveira decision details the history and
context of the Second Amendment, as well as existing legal precedent, and makes clear that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"
e) Don't laugh --it get's funnier. Another section of the Joyce
Foundation gives millions to promote campaign finance reform --in order to combat the "alarming extent" to which "private money"
determines "how policy decisions are made". See
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/moneyandpolitics/moneypolmain-fs.html .
f) It's also interesting to see who runs the Joyce (see
http://www.joycefdn.org/about/aboutmain-fs.html , click on Board). The Chairman of the Board is Mr John T Anderson, Managing Partner at the law firm Lord Bissel and Brook. Another Director, Roger R Fross, is also Partner at Lord Bissel and Brook-- See
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/donor_detail.cfm?DONOR_ID=139. Lord Bissel and Brook is a large Chicago law firm and employer -- see http://www.lordbissell.com/about_history.cfm .
I doubt that this escaped the attention of the faculty and law students at Chicago Kent.
a) A quick check of the Internet shows some interesting information.
The Foundation's web site indicates that the Joyce Foundation gives $millions each year in grants to address "Gun Violence". See http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html .
For example, the site indicates that the Joyce gave:
a) $800,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2002 ("To support research, public education, communication, and advocacy efforts promoting public health oriented gun violence prevention policies."),
b) $1,200,000 to the University of Pennsylvania in 2001 ("To strengthen the Firearm Injury Center and to expand the Medical Professionals as Advocates Program. "),
c) $1,000,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2000 ("To support its efforts to promote public health-oriented gun policy through research, public education, coalition building, and advocacy ").
The Joyce's site indicates that it gave $84,000 in 1999 to the Chicago Kent College of Law (at the Illnois Institute of Technology). The grant was "For a symposium and law review on the Second Amendment" . The Chicago Kent Second Amendment Symposium was held in April 2000 and the papers submitted at the Chicago Kent Symposium were published as an edition of the Chicago Kent Law Review -- See
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/Articles/76.1/contents76.1.htm.
Given the size of the Joyce grant, I assume the honoraria for the eleven presenters consisted of more than coffee and stale donuts.
b) Note how Carl T Bogus described the purpose of this Symposium in his introductory lecture ("The History and
Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship", page 24):
"With generous support from the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-Kent Law Review sponsored this Symposium to take a fresh look at the Second Amendment and, particularly, the collective right theory. This is not, therefore, a balanced symposium. No effort was made to include the individual right point of view. Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium.106"
c) As I've noted, one of the articles was submitted by Michael
Bellesiles and is a slightly re-written version
of Chapter Seven of Arming America. What is hilarious-- in view of Bellesiles' resignation, the revocation of the Bancroft prize, and Knopf's recent announcement that Arming America publication will be halted (and returned copies pulped) -- is that the other Chicago-Kent articles cite Bellesiles' work extensively, as can be seen by searching the articles for keyword "Bellesiles".
Plus the Chicago Kent articles have been issued in hardback under the title "The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms " --edited by the professor with the unfortunate name of "Carl T Bogus". See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565846990/qid=1042690233/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/002-8899428-5123204?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
You just can't buy legal scholarship like that -- although my opinion is that the Joyce Foundation certainly did try.
d) Another funny aspect is that the Violence Policy Center (VPC)
--recipient , remember, of million dollar grants from the Joyce -- promotes the Chicago Kent articles without noting that the articles were funded by the very same Foundation that funds the VPC "To coordinate a national media strategy on gun violence".
For example, in it's Dec 5, 2002 Press Release on the Ninth Court's ruling (that the American people have no Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms"), the VPC noted the following:
" Citing cutting-edge scholarship such as the 2000 Chicago Kent Law Review—Symposium on the Second Amendment: Fresh Looks, the Silveira decision details the history and
context of the Second Amendment, as well as existing legal precedent, and makes clear that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"
e) Don't laugh --it get's funnier. Another section of the Joyce
Foundation gives millions to promote campaign finance reform --in order to combat the "alarming extent" to which "private money"
determines "how policy decisions are made". See
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/moneyandpolitics/moneypolmain-fs.html .
f) It's also interesting to see who runs the Joyce (see
http://www.joycefdn.org/about/aboutmain-fs.html , click on Board). The Chairman of the Board is Mr John T Anderson, Managing Partner at the law firm Lord Bissel and Brook. Another Director, Roger R Fross, is also Partner at Lord Bissel and Brook-- See
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/donor_detail.cfm?DONOR_ID=139. Lord Bissel and Brook is a large Chicago law firm and employer -- see http://www.lordbissell.com/about_history.cfm .
I doubt that this escaped the attention of the faculty and law students at Chicago Kent.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7252)
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 16, 2003 at 9:03 AM
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 16, 2003 at 9:03 AM
The Chicago-Kent Law Review acting as the frontman for the Joyce Foundation, and publishing the Symposium papers in its review, did those papers go through the regular review process -- or was the "generous support" of the Joyce Foundation enough to guarantee that the papers wouldn't get the extensive note-checking treatment that reviews are famous for? It would be an interesting exercise to check the notes to Bellesiles essay, in particular, and see if they accurately portray the material and its import -- I say, in particular, because Reinhardt leads off with reference to another classically Bellesilesian (that's a mouthful) quote, where the quoted material is tacked on to something else not relevant to the quote.
The Chicago-Kent Law Review website says it is completely student-run. It also says that it is an all-symposium format, and it solicits and depends on interested parties to bring the symposium to them, rather than Chicago-Kent organizing it themselves. In fact, the wording strongly suggests that the outside party who proposes and puts together the symposium (and chooses the participants and greenlights the papers), will also be the editor: http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/authors_webpage.htm This suggests that Carl Bogus, a former counsel to a gun-contol group, dreamed up the symposium, or at least was the party that approached the review with a complete and detailed plan (though the Joyce Foundation may have been a prime-mover), and in fact "edited" the papers. Therefore, I suppose the student editors are reduced to the notes section. I think this fully justifies my characterization of the law review as renting itself out.
The Chicago-Kent Law Review website says it is completely student-run. It also says that it is an all-symposium format, and it solicits and depends on interested parties to bring the symposium to them, rather than Chicago-Kent organizing it themselves. In fact, the wording strongly suggests that the outside party who proposes and puts together the symposium (and chooses the participants and greenlights the papers), will also be the editor: http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/authors_webpage.htm This suggests that Carl Bogus, a former counsel to a gun-contol group, dreamed up the symposium, or at least was the party that approached the review with a complete and detailed plan (though the Joyce Foundation may have been a prime-mover), and in fact "edited" the papers. Therefore, I suppose the student editors are reduced to the notes section. I think this fully justifies my characterization of the law review as renting itself out.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7254)
by James Lindgren on January 16, 2003 at 9:46 AM
by James Lindgren on January 16, 2003 at 9:46 AM
At least at the time of the Bogus symposium, a committee of 3 faculty and 2 students chose symposia. Bogus's proposal was brought to Kent by Paul Finkelman, who had visited at Kent for at least a semester. I was on the committee then and might even have been the chair that year. It was pitched as a one-sided symposium to balance out the writings on the pro-gun side. None of those of us voting on it knew much about the 2d amendment literature at the time. I don't remember the Joyce Foundation being in the picture at the time, which means that Kent would have been committing a tiny fraction of what the Joyce Foundation committed. Indeed, if their website is correct, the Joyce Foundation's contribution was probably several times more money than the funding for any other Kent symposium during my 6 years at Chicago-Kent.
I left Kent for Northwestern before the symposium happened, but when a distinguished pro gun rights professor BU's Randy Barnett (who had founded the symposium format at Kent when Randy taught there) asked to be let into the symposium, he was denied entry. He was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time (a disturbing reason if it was really motivating the refusal).
Whatever the reason, in retrospect having a balanced symposium would have been better. Indeed, some of the sillier things that were said in the symposium (often they were attacking straw men) might not have been said if the other side had been represented.
At Kent, editors edit the prose if they want. As to cite-checking, the students are supposed to check the cites, but if you don't footnote a claim or give an incorrect interpretation rather than an incorrect factual claim, cite-checking usually wouldn't catch this. No one knows how many errors, if any, the students caught. One sees only what slipped through.
I left Kent for Northwestern before the symposium happened, but when a distinguished pro gun rights professor BU's Randy Barnett (who had founded the symposium format at Kent when Randy taught there) asked to be let into the symposium, he was denied entry. He was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time (a disturbing reason if it was really motivating the refusal).
Whatever the reason, in retrospect having a balanced symposium would have been better. Indeed, some of the sillier things that were said in the symposium (often they were attacking straw men) might not have been said if the other side had been represented.
At Kent, editors edit the prose if they want. As to cite-checking, the students are supposed to check the cites, but if you don't footnote a claim or give an incorrect interpretation rather than an incorrect factual claim, cite-checking usually wouldn't catch this. No one knows how many errors, if any, the students caught. One sees only what slipped through.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7260)
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 16, 2003 at 11:24 AM
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 16, 2003 at 11:24 AM
Thanks for the clarification, Prof. Lindgren. The Chicago-Kent website does make clear that the party bringing the proposal to Chicago-Kent can be the editor of the symposium papers vis-a-vis publication in the review, without any explicitly claimed role for the student editors (in any case, I can't believe that the entirely third-rate and nasty contribution of Bogus would have been published had there been Chicago-Kent editing).
I find it interesting that Finkelman brought the proposal on Bogus' behalf, as Finkelman had the reputation as a scholar and the connection to Kent -- a move long on political sense, if not on scholarship, as Finkelman had not published in the area. If the Joyce Foundation did block Barnett (and why shouldn't they, as they put up the money -- the golden rule being he who has the gold makes the rules), then that signals who was really in charge, though that hardly seems necessary, as it was pitched to Chicago-Kent as a collective right gathering. I don't doubt that the Joyce Foundation wasn't put forward ab initio as the funding. Of course, all this still doesn't explain how Bogus chose the particpants, given their lack of publication in the subject area (now that's an interesting question).
In any case, the symposium proposer apparently (if the website is to be trusted) is responsible for submitting a list of possible symposium members, so it would be well within Bogus' purview not to nominate Barnett. The question then becomes whether barring an entire side from a symposium in order to "balance out the writings on the pro-gun side" was a wise decision. It is interesting that even more 'balancing out' was felt to be necessary, as not long before, the collectivist view was also given extensive play (monopoly?) in Constitutional Commentary.
The Chicago-Kent Symposium occurred at the end of April 2000. In October 1999, Constitutional Commentary published an issue larded with contributions on the Second Amendment by soon to be signatories of the Yassky anti-individualist amicus brief (the names will be familiar to many). CC prides and promotes itself as "one of the few faculty-edited law journals in the country", with part of its popularity "due to the editors' preference for 'shorter and less ponderous articles' as opposed to the more lengthy and heavily footed [sic] noted articles found in traditional law reviews." (nice editing there)
In short, we have here a precursor. The ant-individualists have gravitated to a journal (CC) with peer-review (well, I know I feel better about that already), that requires little in documentation, and apparently goes without the busy-bee efforts of student cite-checking. In the run-up to Emerson we have two journals packed with anti-individualist literature that possibly did not go through the regular checks applied to law review articles in the mainstream venues. And both had articles by Bellesiles before his book was published. Hmmm. Perhaps this should be instructive.
My crack about there being money lying around at Chicago-Kent (due to the Joyce Foundation) to fund a membership and trip to the OAH for Volokh, might very well be in error, given the number of contributors and the stunningly high honoraria -- its quite possible that the bulk ended up in the symposium participants' pockets. Same goes for 'renting out', as the money trail is unclear. In any case, the possibility for abuse of the symposium system set up at Chicago-Kent is clear.
I find it interesting that Finkelman brought the proposal on Bogus' behalf, as Finkelman had the reputation as a scholar and the connection to Kent -- a move long on political sense, if not on scholarship, as Finkelman had not published in the area. If the Joyce Foundation did block Barnett (and why shouldn't they, as they put up the money -- the golden rule being he who has the gold makes the rules), then that signals who was really in charge, though that hardly seems necessary, as it was pitched to Chicago-Kent as a collective right gathering. I don't doubt that the Joyce Foundation wasn't put forward ab initio as the funding. Of course, all this still doesn't explain how Bogus chose the particpants, given their lack of publication in the subject area (now that's an interesting question).
In any case, the symposium proposer apparently (if the website is to be trusted) is responsible for submitting a list of possible symposium members, so it would be well within Bogus' purview not to nominate Barnett. The question then becomes whether barring an entire side from a symposium in order to "balance out the writings on the pro-gun side" was a wise decision. It is interesting that even more 'balancing out' was felt to be necessary, as not long before, the collectivist view was also given extensive play (monopoly?) in Constitutional Commentary.
The Chicago-Kent Symposium occurred at the end of April 2000. In October 1999, Constitutional Commentary published an issue larded with contributions on the Second Amendment by soon to be signatories of the Yassky anti-individualist amicus brief (the names will be familiar to many). CC prides and promotes itself as "one of the few faculty-edited law journals in the country", with part of its popularity "due to the editors' preference for 'shorter and less ponderous articles' as opposed to the more lengthy and heavily footed [sic] noted articles found in traditional law reviews." (nice editing there)
In short, we have here a precursor. The ant-individualists have gravitated to a journal (CC) with peer-review (well, I know I feel better about that already), that requires little in documentation, and apparently goes without the busy-bee efforts of student cite-checking. In the run-up to Emerson we have two journals packed with anti-individualist literature that possibly did not go through the regular checks applied to law review articles in the mainstream venues. And both had articles by Bellesiles before his book was published. Hmmm. Perhaps this should be instructive.
My crack about there being money lying around at Chicago-Kent (due to the Joyce Foundation) to fund a membership and trip to the OAH for Volokh, might very well be in error, given the number of contributors and the stunningly high honoraria -- its quite possible that the bulk ended up in the symposium participants' pockets. Same goes for 'renting out', as the money trail is unclear. In any case, the possibility for abuse of the symposium system set up at Chicago-Kent is clear.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7263)
by James Lindgren on January 16, 2003 at 11:50 AM
by James Lindgren on January 16, 2003 at 11:50 AM
Actually, Constitutional Commentary is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense. They sometimes send out articles for peer review, but usually don't. I don't know why there were two collectivist symposia at about the same time. Sometimes two groups get the same idea about the same time and sometimes the same person pitches it to two editors at once. If both say yes, they might have 2 symposia. I don't know the extent of the overlap, but Michael Bellesiles is in both symposia.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7359)
by Steve H on January 18, 2003 at 3:26 AM
by Steve H on January 18, 2003 at 3:26 AM
Open questions...
The Joyce Foundation's statement does not match Prof. Bogus' statement of purpose for the research, leaving out the part about taking "a fresh look" at the "collective right" theory.
Should not these statements be, if not identical, at least equivalent in meaning? If not, why not?
Prof. Bogus seems to place more emphasis on a "fresh look" than a "balanced ... viewpoint". Is that an appropriate stance for a historian to take?
How and why does the purpose of the grant become modified in this manner? Is it to avoid IRS scrutiny?
Is there a loophole in the IRS definition of 501(c)(3) organizations which permits organizations to sponsor "historical" research targeted at influencing public policy indirectly, and legal interpretation of the law in particular?
$84,000 / 10 papers = $8,400/ paper. Who if anyone got some of the $84,000?
Does or should money received towards research need to be disclosed in the paper or papers that result from that research? E.g., "Research for this paper was performed using money from a grant by the Joyce Foundation" or something to that effect.
Overall, I am getting the sense of an "appearance of impropriety" in all this...
The Joyce Foundation's statement does not match Prof. Bogus' statement of purpose for the research, leaving out the part about taking "a fresh look" at the "collective right" theory.
Should not these statements be, if not identical, at least equivalent in meaning? If not, why not?
Prof. Bogus seems to place more emphasis on a "fresh look" than a "balanced ... viewpoint". Is that an appropriate stance for a historian to take?
How and why does the purpose of the grant become modified in this manner? Is it to avoid IRS scrutiny?
Is there a loophole in the IRS definition of 501(c)(3) organizations which permits organizations to sponsor "historical" research targeted at influencing public policy indirectly, and legal interpretation of the law in particular?
$84,000 / 10 papers = $8,400/ paper. Who if anyone got some of the $84,000?
Does or should money received towards research need to be disclosed in the paper or papers that result from that research? E.g., "Research for this paper was performed using money from a grant by the Joyce Foundation" or something to that effect.
Overall, I am getting the sense of an "appearance of impropriety" in all this...
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7378)
by James Lindgren on January 18, 2003 at 2:19 PM
by James Lindgren on January 18, 2003 at 2:19 PM
In academics, money usually follows the ideas rather than the other way around. As to individual studies, people should deal with the quality of the work, not the funding source.
John Lott's work, for example, was unfairly criticized because it came ultimately from a grant from the Olin Foundation to the University of Chicago. Anyone who has dealt with Olin grants in law schools (most major law schools get Olin grants) know that the foundation is usually not even aware of faculty or fellow's projects when they fund a school's programs. That's like criticizing a grant from the Ford Foundation if it studies car safety or the Rockefeller Foundation if it studies oil. Since the University of Chicago was founded by the Rockefellers, I guess that would taint any work done there on monopolies, anti-trust, or oil and gas.
Regarding the C-K symposium, it is likely that some was spent on the expenses of holding the physical conference; symposia in academics usually cost 10-20,000 dollars (800 to 1,500 per person on average for travel and hotel), plus meals, brochures and xeroxing. I heard, but cannot verify, that there was also a lot spent on the Guns conference for sending out lots of extra copies of the published symposium or paying for publication expenses of some sort. My guess (if I knew the answer I wouldn't reveal it for confidentiality reasons) is that slightly more than half of the grant was for honoraria, but it could well have been less than half. I'm just guessing.
A typical Chicago-Kent conference in my day had money either for a bare-bones physical conference in Chicago OR for very small honoaria, but not for both.
John Lott's work, for example, was unfairly criticized because it came ultimately from a grant from the Olin Foundation to the University of Chicago. Anyone who has dealt with Olin grants in law schools (most major law schools get Olin grants) know that the foundation is usually not even aware of faculty or fellow's projects when they fund a school's programs. That's like criticizing a grant from the Ford Foundation if it studies car safety or the Rockefeller Foundation if it studies oil. Since the University of Chicago was founded by the Rockefellers, I guess that would taint any work done there on monopolies, anti-trust, or oil and gas.
Regarding the C-K symposium, it is likely that some was spent on the expenses of holding the physical conference; symposia in academics usually cost 10-20,000 dollars (800 to 1,500 per person on average for travel and hotel), plus meals, brochures and xeroxing. I heard, but cannot verify, that there was also a lot spent on the Guns conference for sending out lots of extra copies of the published symposium or paying for publication expenses of some sort. My guess (if I knew the answer I wouldn't reveal it for confidentiality reasons) is that slightly more than half of the grant was for honoraria, but it could well have been less than half. I'm just guessing.
A typical Chicago-Kent conference in my day had money either for a bare-bones physical conference in Chicago OR for very small honoaria, but not for both.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7385)
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 18, 2003 at 3:31 PM
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 18, 2003 at 3:31 PM
"In academics, money usually follows the ideas rather than the other way around."
True, but in this case, the majority of those presenting papers at the symposium had no record of publication on the subject. The question of the funding mostly goes not to the intentions of C-K, but, given the intentions of the organizer (Bogus), as revealed by his prior employment/ideological commitment, and by the poor quality of his own contribution, as well as the uneven quality and poor prior record of publication in the area by other contributors, the source of funding explains why it was funded in the face of such a lack of prior demonstration of competence in the area. The question again asserts itself -- how did Bogus decide on these contributors, given their lack of publication in the area?
Once you check the pattern of the other grants, you see why Joyce funded the symposium -- nowhere are the costs and benefits of guns assessed by the foundations grantees, just the costs.
That the truth is irrelevant to the Joyce Foundation, is revealed in this extraordinary blurb from their website, promoting the book version of the symposium:
"On the three occasions the United States Supreme Court has convened to discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- in 1876, 1886 and 1939 -- it has ruled that the Amendment grants citizens a right to bear arms only within the militia, or that the right is a "collective" one rather than an "individual" one. The first scholarly article guaranteeing the individual's right to keep and bear arms did not appear until 1960."
Simply, an unbelievable summary of the Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller cases.
True, but in this case, the majority of those presenting papers at the symposium had no record of publication on the subject. The question of the funding mostly goes not to the intentions of C-K, but, given the intentions of the organizer (Bogus), as revealed by his prior employment/ideological commitment, and by the poor quality of his own contribution, as well as the uneven quality and poor prior record of publication in the area by other contributors, the source of funding explains why it was funded in the face of such a lack of prior demonstration of competence in the area. The question again asserts itself -- how did Bogus decide on these contributors, given their lack of publication in the area?
Once you check the pattern of the other grants, you see why Joyce funded the symposium -- nowhere are the costs and benefits of guns assessed by the foundations grantees, just the costs.
That the truth is irrelevant to the Joyce Foundation, is revealed in this extraordinary blurb from their website, promoting the book version of the symposium:
"On the three occasions the United States Supreme Court has convened to discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- in 1876, 1886 and 1939 -- it has ruled that the Amendment grants citizens a right to bear arms only within the militia, or that the right is a "collective" one rather than an "individual" one. The first scholarly article guaranteeing the individual's right to keep and bear arms did not appear until 1960."
Simply, an unbelievable summary of the Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller cases.
RE: Joyce Foundation and Chicago Kent
(#7393)
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 18, 2003 at 6:09 PM
by Richard Henry Morgan on January 18, 2003 at 6:09 PM
Here's a quote from Carl Bogus' contribution to the book he edited, The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms (p.1):
The United States Supreme Court addressed the amendment three times -- in 1876, 1886, and 1939 -- and on each occasion held that it granted the people the right to bear arms only within the militia. Although in some circles today there is much discussion about what the word 'militia' means, the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term. It held that the amendment referred to the militia defined in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, that is, the militia organized by Congress and subject to joint federal and state control. This is generally referred to the as the "collective rights" model because it holds that the Second Amendment grants the people a collective right to an armed militia as opposed to an individual right to keep and bear arms for one's own purposes outside of, even notwithstanding, governmental regulation."
Note the easy slide between what the Supreme Court has held, and Bogus' interpretation. The fourth sentence gives the impression that the Supreme Court has endorsed the collective rights model. Then on pages 7 and 8, Bogus makes explicit what was only implicit before: since Congress has "the power to organize the militia", "the militia is what Congress decides it is". Now this is interesting inasmuch as the exegesis of "organizing" that came out of the Convention debates is that of Rufus King, who "said that by organizing the Committee meant, proportioning the officers & men" (Farrand, 2:385). Add to that what was said in the Miller opinion:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected tom appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
So Bogus was right: "the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term." Unfortunately, Bogus has leapt over the exegesis of the Convention, over the Supreme Court's own language in Miller, and given us his own spin on "organizing" and thus "militia" -- to Bogus, "the militia is what Congress decides it is", and the Supreme Court can just go fly a kite (though, of course, the discrepancy between Bogus' and the Supreme Court's view of the "militia", is never mentioned by Bogus).
The United States Supreme Court addressed the amendment three times -- in 1876, 1886, and 1939 -- and on each occasion held that it granted the people the right to bear arms only within the militia. Although in some circles today there is much discussion about what the word 'militia' means, the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term. It held that the amendment referred to the militia defined in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, that is, the militia organized by Congress and subject to joint federal and state control. This is generally referred to the as the "collective rights" model because it holds that the Second Amendment grants the people a collective right to an armed militia as opposed to an individual right to keep and bear arms for one's own purposes outside of, even notwithstanding, governmental regulation."
Note the easy slide between what the Supreme Court has held, and Bogus' interpretation. The fourth sentence gives the impression that the Supreme Court has endorsed the collective rights model. Then on pages 7 and 8, Bogus makes explicit what was only implicit before: since Congress has "the power to organize the militia", "the militia is what Congress decides it is". Now this is interesting inasmuch as the exegesis of "organizing" that came out of the Convention debates is that of Rufus King, who "said that by organizing the Committee meant, proportioning the officers & men" (Farrand, 2:385). Add to that what was said in the Miller opinion:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected tom appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
So Bogus was right: "the Supreme Court had no trouble with the term." Unfortunately, Bogus has leapt over the exegesis of the Convention, over the Supreme Court's own language in Miller, and given us his own spin on "organizing" and thus "militia" -- to Bogus, "the militia is what Congress decides it is", and the Supreme Court can just go fly a kite (though, of course, the discrepancy between Bogus' and the Supreme Court's view of the "militia", is never mentioned by Bogus).
When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "".
by Don Williams on January 16, 2003 at 1:02 AM