Filing an Amici Curiae Brief Supporting Heller

G

GHF

New member
Like everybody on the form, I am more than mildly interested in District of Columbia vs Heller. I am interested in filing an amici curiae brief supporting Heller.

I am not a lawyer, so I would be filing pro se. Having been involved in several civil cases, doing some rather extensive research in legal documents, and writing as a kind of para legal a number of cases where I was the technical expert on the issues of the case, I think I can write legal enough to make my points clear.

I am completing some project work in an area of the county (Bloomburgville) where my personal situation is analogous to Heller’s in the District of Columbia, and I want to provide to the Court that experience to expand their view of the issues.

In reviewing www.supremecourtus.gov, I can not find

  1. the format for
  2. the filing date for
  3. the method or methods of delivery
to do this.

Are there any lawyers or other legal professionals out there that can answer my questions?
 
If anyone wants to run with this it is open for discussion. Perhaps my premises are flawed but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't make the argument better.

If I were to file a brief it would contain only two points:

The States' Right or Collective Right premise is fatally flawed by the very writings of the Founders in the main body of the Constitution which predates the Bill of Rights.

1. The word "Right" (capitalization in the original) appears only once in the main body of the Constitution; and that single usage applies to individuals. When the Constitution mentions the States, the Judiciary, the Congress, or the Executive only the words "Power" or "Powers" is used.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Article I, Section 8, Para 8
Click to expand...

So there cannot be a "State right" when none exists in the Constitution.

2. The Constitution is quite clear on the raising of armies -- ie: militia -- because states only have a militia which is set out in the Constitution.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Article II, Section 2, Para 1
Click to expand...

The Constitution is also clear on the role of the Congress as it applies to the militia; and those powers are but three unless they are in the actual service of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I, Section 8, Para 16
Click to expand...

The Constitution is also clear on when the States may keep any "troops" which is an army and not the Militia.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article I, Section 10, Para 3
Click to expand...

So the main body of the Constitution specifically bars the States from keeping troops without the consent of the Congress; and the Collective Right premise states that the Second Amendment was put into place to keep the federal government from disarming the States' Militias.

This would mean that the Second Amendment would protect the States from the Congress disarming their Militias; yet the States would have to have the permission of the Congress to be so armed in the first place.
 
I am completing some project work in an area of the county (Bloomburgville) where my personal situation is analogous to Heller’s in the District of Columbia, and I want to provide to the Court that experience to expand their view of the issues.
Click to expand...

Bloomburgville's laws are irrelevant. Your personal experience there is irrelevant. If you try to obtain permission to file a brief, it must specifically and exclusively address the issue on which cert was granted.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but I want to save you some valuable time and effort, because a brief that addresses anything other than the issue to be resolved by the court will likely end up in the trash. I am impressed that you are interested enough to try and help, though; thanks! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top