The rule of history

Decisions like Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on DC's gun law reminded me why I'm glad I went into history and not law. The decision is largely based on history and parsing the language of the Second Amendment to understand the original meaning. What did "bear arms" mean in the 18th century? An amicus (friend of the Court) brief from linguists was submitted with one suggestion. The justices looked at state constitutions, Quaker beliefs, debates in the House of Lords, Thomas Jefferson's writings, and 19th century court cases. Justice Scalia accuses Justice Stevens of "flatly misreading the historical record." It all sounds a lot like an historical monograph.

So why be glad to be an historian rather than a judge? Because when I wind together historical contexts and do a close analysis of quotes, the end to my argument is an intellectual one. History is messy, and there are always multiple ways of combining the evidence to come to a particular conclusion. There is no one right answer, no claim that I hand down as absolute Truth. But when judges make historical arguments, they are recreating the law of the land from one of many possible histories.

Back to the gun control case: this is a legal question, not an historical one. As Justice Breyer notes in his dissent, examining DC's law with traditional legal instruments (such as "rational basis" or "strict scrutiny") might lead the Court to different answers. Certainly it's fascinating to look at the historical context and what the founders intended, but the founders also intended to bar non-whites and women from voting and to perpetuate slavery. The 21st century is a very different place from the 18th, which is why we go by the rule of law rather than the rule of history.

More reading...

• A good survey of historical research on the 2nd amendment
• A liberal columnist's view in support of the decision
• The NY Times' condemnation of the decision
• Amicus briefs, including those by academics on both sides of the case
  

Miniature wonders in a garden railway

I recently drove out to the Morris Arboretum with my grandparents on a beautiful weekend to see the flowers. I'd read that there would be a miniature railway, but I had no idea how elaborate it would be. This is apparently a yearly creation, and the theme for this year was "Architectural Wonders of the World." Mixed in with the famous buildings were historical landmarks from the Philadelphia area, such as several Boathouse Row boathouses and the Powel House. Below you can see the recreation of Bartram House, which I wrote about visiting this fall.All of the buildings were creatively constructed with natural materials, which gave the whole railway the look of some sort of fairy town. Adding to that effect were the world wonders scattered around the garden. My grandparents had visited most of the places and it was a chance for them to reminisce about their travels. I, on the other hand, have plenty of traveling yet to do.

Check out more pics of the railway and gardens on my Flickr stream.

If you can't take the heat...

Apparently the electrical system at my apartment building couldn't. I can't fathom why, but it took them all week to fix it. This means the building had to pay for all of the residents to stay in hotels. Which, in my case, meant a four-star hotel nearby that is probably one of the fancier places I've ever stayed. It's a French hotel and the lobby is full of people speaking French. Some other unique features:
-a piece of modern art over the bed with its own light
-a bathroom as big as the bedroom in my last apartment with separate shower and tub
-42" flat-screen television
-feather bed with what I'm guessing are at least 500 thread count sheets
-bottle of Evian delivered every evening

I was wondering if Philly had ever had any similar hotels in the past, and I found two contenders. First is the La Pierre, which was only 2 blocks from here and opened in 1853. As for hosting foreign guests, it sounds like they went to the United States Hotel in the middle of the 19th century. Any earlier than that century and no matter who you were, you were probably sleeping in a tavern; as the chapter on hotels in a late-19th century book on Philadelphia history notes, "In olden times, such a thing as the modern hotel, with its fashionably-dressed and all-important clerk, its vast smoking-room, carpeted parlors, gilt mouldings, and other luxurious appointments, was unknown." In this heat, I'd give up all the fanciness just for the air conditioning.

On ice cream and intellect

I have a minor obsession with ice cream. Growing up, I ate mint chocolate chip ice cream at home every night and I still keep about 4 cartons of ice cream in my freezer at all times. I've discovered the wonders of Philadelphia's ice cream parlors and gelaterias, particularly Franklin Fountain, Scoop DeVille, and Capogiro. Little did I know that my ice cream eating habit was offensive.

I was surprised to learn, from Bush's bioethics advisor Leon R. Kass, that eating ice cream cones is wrong because of more than just the high fat and sugar content. I am in fact committing an etiquette faux pas whenever I consume an ice cream cone. According to Kass, "licking an ice cream cone" is the worst of many "uncivilized forms of eating" because it is "a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive."

Lest you think Kass is some undereducated lunatic, it's important to note that this guy has an M.D. from Chicago and a Ph.D. from Harvard. This proves some long-standing assumptions of mine: a) Getting a Ph.D. does not require logical reasoning abilities, b) Being well-educated does not make you smart, and c) If you meet somebody who dislikes ice cream, steer clear.

****
For your amusement...some more quotes from Kass. He hates feminists even more than ice cream lickers!