scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Joyce Lee Malcolm

Bio: Joyce Lee Malcolm is an academic researcher from George Mason University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Bill of rights. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 23 publications receiving 174 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, Joyce Malcolm explains how the Englishmen's hazardous duty evolved into a right and how it was transferred to America and transformed into the Second Amendment, revealing the original meaning and intentions behind the individual right to "bear arms".
Abstract: Joyce Malcolm illuminates the historical facts underlying the current passionate debate about gun-related violence, the Brady Bill, and the NRA, revealing the original meaning and intentions behind the individual right to "bear arms". Few on either side of the Atlantic realize that this extraordinary, controversial and least understood liberty was a direct legacy of English law. This book explains how the Englishmen's hazardous duty evolved into a right and how it was transferred to America and transformed into the Second Amendment. Malcolm's story begins in turbulent 17th-century England. She shows why English subjects, led by the governing classes, decided that such a dangerous public freedom as bearing arms was necessary. Entangled in the narrative are shifting notions of the connections between individual ownership, private weapons and social status, the citizen army and the professional army, and obedience and resistance, as well as ideas about civilian control of the sword and self-defence. The results add to knowledge of English life, politics and constitutional development, and present an historical analysis of a controversial Anglo-American legacy, a legacy that resonates loudly in America today.

38 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The challenge Charles I prepared to fling at his accusers on 22 January 1649 has conditioned the thinking of generations of historians as mentioned in this paper, and the dramatic failure of the law in Charles's case has induced scholars to doubt the efficacy of this second maxim, to accept Charles's interpretation of its counterpart, and to shrug off as fine sounding but unrealistic the strategies early modern Englishmen relied on to control kings.
Abstract: The challenge Charles I prepared to fling at his accusers on 22 January 1649 has conditioned the thinking of generations of historians. “No earthly power can justly call me, who am your king, in question as a delinquent,” he proclaimed. He reminded those who presumed to judge him that they had been “born his subjects and born subjects to those laws, which determined, ‘that the king can do no wrong,’” a maxim that “guards every English monarch, even the least deserving.” Indeed, there was no established legal process that could hold Charles personally accountable for his actions, even if, as charged, he meant to overthrow the rights and liberties of his people. The tenet the king can do no wrong shifted responsibility onto those who carried out royal orders. Proponents of royal supremacy had seen in that maxim proof that kings were not only legally unaccountable but actually above the law.However, an equally venerable English maxim explained that although “the king was under no man, he was under God and the law; for the law maketh the king.” To modern historians the two maxims seem contradictory. And the dramatic failure of the law in Charles's case has induced scholars to doubt the efficacy of this second maxim, to accept Charles's interpretation of its counterpart—that the king could do no wrong—and to shrug off as fine-sounding but unrealistic the strategies early modern Englishmen relied on to control kings. Both maxims, the one Charles sheltered under and the one he rejected, were designed to control his behavior.

19 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The history of the right to keep and bear arms has been extensively studied in the last few decades as mentioned in this paper, with a large number of grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Bar Foundation, and Harvard Law School.
Abstract: Visiting Scholar, Harvard Law School; B.A., 1963, Barnard College; Ph.D., 1977, Brandeis University. ** This article is part of a larger project on the history of the right to bear arms, the research for which has been made possible from the following generous awards: a Research Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, a Fellowship in Legal History from the American Bar Foundation, a Summer Fellowship from the Liberty Fund, and a Mark DeWolfe Howe research grant from Harvard Law School. 1 1 T. MACAULAY, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS, CONTRIBUTED TO THE EDINBURGH REVIEW 154, 162 (Leipzig 1850). 2 See 1 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *139-40 (1st ed. Oxford 1765). 3 De Lolme's book, THE CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND, was first published in 1771 and quickly went through an impressive number of editions. D'Israeli later referred to De Lolme as \"the English Montesquieu.\" See OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1 THE CONCISE DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY 332 (2d ed. 1903); 7 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA 970 (11th ed. 1910). [Copyright © 1983 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Originally published as 10 HASTINGS CONST. L. Q. 285-314 (1983). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from O'Brien Center for Scholarly Publications (www.uchastings.edu/pubs/subs.html), Attn: Subscriptions, UC Hastings College of the Law, 200 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4978, Telephone 415 565-4816, Fax 415 565-4814. Professor Malcolm is the author of numerous books on English History including TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE ORIGINS OF AN ANGLO-AMERICAN RIGHT which may be obtained from www.amazon.com]

17 citations

Book
01 Jun 1999
TL;DR: The English Civil War in mid-century and the Glorious revolution of 1688 were the culmination of a protracted struggle between kings who were eager to consolidate and even extend their power and subjects who are eager to identify and defend individual liberties.
Abstract: The English Civil War in mid-century and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 were the culmination of a protracted struggle between kings who were eager to consolidate and even extend their power and subjects who were eager to identify and defend individual liberties. The source and nature of sovereignty was of course the central issue. The writings, by the renowned (Coke, Sidney, Shaftsbury) and the unremembered (Anonymous) therefore constitute an enduring contribution to the historical record of the rise of ordered liberty.

13 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A committee of the National Research Council in the United States was charged with providing an assessment of the strengths and limitations of the existing research and data on gun violence in December 2004, the committee issued its final report, in book form The report contains nine chapters and five appendices, on such topics as firearms data, patterns of firearm violence, self-defense gun use, right-to-carry laws, firearms and suicide, and criminal justice interventions as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The National Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005, $4795, pp 328 ISBN 0309091241 ![Graphic][1] A committee of the National Research Council in the United States was charged with providing an assessment of the strengths and limitations of the existing research and data on gun violence In December 2004, the committee issued its final report, in book form The book contains nine chapters, and five appendices, on such topics as firearms data, patterns of firearm violence, self-defense gun use, right-to-carry laws, firearms and suicide, and criminal justice interventions The committee consisted of 15 highly respected scientists—experts in economics, criminology, epidemiology, statistics, sociology, psychiatry, psychology, and public policy By design, they were not experts on firearms issues Unfortunately, none were injury control professionals, and few have worked directly in the public health field Nonetheless, injury control professionals can fully support the committee’s major recommendation that “the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research” (p 3) to give policymakers a solid empirical and research base for decisions about … [1]: /embed/graphic-1gif

294 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this view, a Hobson's choice between anarchy and hierarchy is not necessary because an intermediary structure, here dubbed "negarchy" is also available as mentioned in this paper, which is a theory of security that is superior to realism because it addresses not only threats of war from other states but also the threat of despotism at home.
Abstract: A rediscovery of the long-forgotten republican version of liberal political theory has arresting implications for the theory and practice of international relations. Republican liberalism has a theory of security that is superior to realism, because it addresses not only threats of war from other states but also the threat of despotism at home. In this view, a Hobson's choice between anarchy and hierarchy is not necessary because an intermediary structure, here dubbed “negarchy,” is also available. The American Union from 1787 until 1861 is a historical example. This Philadelphian system was not a real state since, for example, the union did not enjoy a monopoly of legitimate violence. Yet neither was it a state system, since the American states lacked sufficient autonomy. While it shared some features with the Westphalian system such as balance of power, it differed fundamentally. Its origins owed something to particular conditions of time and place, and the American Civil War ended this system. Yet close analysis indicates that it may have surprising relevance for the future of contemporary issues such as the European Union and nuclear governance.

178 citations

Book ChapterDOI
05 Jul 2017
TL;DR: The Act of March 1649 abolishing the office of king confirmed that monarchy is 'dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the people', and added that in England the effect of the prerogative has been 'to oppress and impoverish and enslave the subject' as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Act of March 1649 abolishing the office of king confirmed that monarchy is 'dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the people', and added that in England the effect of the prerogative has been 'to oppress and impoverish and enslave the subject'. Having raised the question, however, Isaiah Berlin confidently answers that no such third concept of liberty can be coherently entertained. To speak of dependence as lack of liberty, he writes, would be to confound freedom with other concepts in a manner at once misleading and confused. Stating his grounds for this conclusion, Berlin goes on to enunciate his most general claim about the concept of liberty. When he discusses negative liberty, he gives an account closely resembling the analysis that, according to MacCallum and his numerous followers, must be given of any claim about freedom if it is to be intelligible.

149 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The article concludes that the success of health-related social movements is associated with the articulation of a socially (as well as scientifically) credible threat to the public's health, the ability to mobilize a diverse organizational constituency, and the convergence of political opportunities with target vulnerabilities.
Abstract: Social movements organized around perceived threats to health play an important role in American life as advocates for change in health policies and health behaviors. This article employs a framework drawn from social movement and related sociological theories to compare two such movements: the smoking/tobacco control movement and the gun control movement. A major purpose of the article is to identify specific social movement ideologies and actions that are more or less likely to facilitate achievement of the movement's health policy objectives. The article concludes that the success of health-related social movements is associated with (1) the articulation of a socially (as well as scientifically) credible threat to the public's health, (2) the ability to mobilize a diverse organizational constituency, and (3) the convergence of political opportunities with target vulnerabilities.

146 citations

Book
01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of ten rules for democratizing violence, including the following: 1. Surplus violence 2. Muskets, terrorists 3. Thinking violence 4. Civilisation 5. Barbarism? 6. Why violence? 7. Uncivil wars 8. Ethics 9.
Abstract: 1. Surplus violence 2. Muskets, terrorists 3. Thinking violence 4. Civilisation 5. Barbarism? 6. Why violence? 7. Uncivil wars 8. Ethics 9. Ten rules for democratizing violence.

132 citations