Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The article presents an analysis of the majority and minority opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States issued on in 2008. The court case addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution that establishes gun rights in a famously confusing wording. The analysis applies parts of Fairclough and Fairclough’s ( 2011 , 2012 ) model of analysing argumentation and also discusses intertextuality to account for how the justices construct their arguments. The analysis shows how the justices shape their arguments on the basis of their values and beliefs, presenting contradictory readings of the amendment, sources of evidence and the preferred application of the amendment.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. by Michael Holquist . Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Ed. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist . Translated by Vern W. McGee . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Balkin, Jack M.
    2004 “The Passionate Intensity of the Confirmation Process”. Jurist. AccessedJune 22, 2011, jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/balkin.php.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Balter, S. J.
    2001 “The Search for Grounds in Legal Argumentation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Texas vs Johnson.” Argumentation15 (4): 381–395. doi: 10.1023/A:1012282916984
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012282916984 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baum, Lawrence
    2001The Supreme Court. 7th Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernstein, Basil
    1996Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Billig, Michael
    2003 “Political Communication.” InOxford Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. by David O. Sears , Leonie Huddy , and Robert Jervis , 222–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blackstone, William
    . N.d. [1765] “Commentaries on the Law of England.” AccessedJune 22, 2011, www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-101.htm.
  9. Blommaert, Jan
    2005Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610295
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610295 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, Michael S.
    2001 “The Strange Case of United States v. Miller.” Accessed February 16, 2008, www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm.
  11. Cress, Lawrence Delbert
    1984 “An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms.” The Journal of American History71 (1): 22–42. doi: 10.2307/1899832
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1899832 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fairclough, Isabela , and Norman Fairclough
    2011 “Practical Reasoning in Political Discourse: The UK Government’s Response to the Economic Crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report.” Discourse and Society22 (3): 243–268. doi: 10.1177/0957926510395439
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395439 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairclough, Norman
    1999Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 “The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis.” InDiscourse as Data. A Guide for Analysis, ed. by Margaret Wetherell , Stephanie Taylor , and Simeon J. Yates , 229–266. London: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2006 “Semiosis, Ideology and Mediation: A Dialectical View.” InMediating Ideology in Text and Image: Ten Critical Studies, ed. by Inger Lassen , Jeanne Strunck , and Torben Vestergaard , 19–35. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.18.04fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.18.04fai [Google Scholar]
  18. Fairclough, Norman , and Lilie Chouliaraki
    1999Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Forchtner, Bernhard , and Ana Tominc
    2012 “Critique and argumentation: on the relation between the discourse-historical approach and pragma-dialectics.” Journal of Language and Politics11 (1): 31–50. doi: 10.1075/jlp.11.1.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.11.1.02for [Google Scholar]
  20. Freitas, Lúcia Gonçalves
    2014 “Argumentation and Discourse on the Maria da Penha Act in Decisions of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice.” Bakhtiniana9 (1): 75–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hodges, Adam
    2008 “The Politics of Recontextualisation: Discursive Competition over Claims of Iranian Involvement in Iraq.” Discourse & Society19 (4): 483–505. doi: 10.1177/0957926508089940
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508089940 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011The “War on Terror” Narrative. Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759590.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759590.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2013 Review of Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough’sPolitical Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Journal of Language and Politics12 (2): 295–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kristeva, Julia
    1986 “Word, Dialogue and Novel.” InThe Kristeva Reader, ed. by Toril Moi , 34–61. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Krzyzanowski, Michal
    2010The Discursive Construction of European Identities. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Sanford
    1989 “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.” The Yale Law Journal99 (3): 637–659.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levy, Robert A.
    2007 “The D.C. Gun Ban: Supreme Court Preview.” AccessedAugust 23, 2012, www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8717.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levy, Robert A , Ilya Shapiro , and Roger Pilon
    2009 “National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago; McDonald v. City of Chicago.” AccessedJune 8, 2011, www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10336.
  29. Martinez Guillem, Susana
    2009 “Argumentation, Metadiscourse and Social Cognition: Organizing Knowledge in Political Communication.” Discourse & Society20 (6): 727–746. doi: 10.1177/0957926509342368
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509342368 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mootz, Francis J.
    III2010 “Perelman’s Theory of Argumentation and Natural Law.” Philosophy and Rhetoric43 (4), 383–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Morson, Gary Saul , and Caryl Emerson
    1990Mikhail Bakhtin: The Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Perelman, Chaïm
    1980Justice, Law, and Argument. Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Põiklik, Pille
    2011 “The Unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the Light of American Ideals.” Estonian Journal of English Studies2 (1): 110–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2012 “Recontextualisation of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court Decisions in The New York Times.” Brno Studies in English38 (1): 23–37. doi: 10.5817/BSE2012‑1‑2
    https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-1-2 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013Space and Positioning in Media Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Representation of Second Amendment Court Cases in The New York Times. PhD Dissertation, University of Tartu. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Reisigl, Martin , and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2009 “The discourse-historical approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd Edition, ed. by Ruth Wodak , and Michael Meyer , 87–121. London: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Richardson, John E. , and Ruth Wodak
    2009 “The Impact of Visual Racism: Visual Arguments in Political Leaflets of Austrian and British Far-right Parties.” Controversia2 (6), 45–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Scalia, Antonin
    2008 “The Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller. 554 U.S.__(2008).” AccessedAugust 5, 2012, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf.
  40. Scollon, Ron
    2001Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shalhope, Robert E.
    1982 “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment.” The Journal of American History69 (3): 599–614. doi: 10.2307/1903139
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1903139 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sirovich, Lawrence
    2003 “A pattern analysis of the second Rehnquist U.S. Supreme Court.” PNAS100 (13): 7432–7437. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1132164100
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1132164100 [Google Scholar]
  43. Stevens, John P.
    2008 “Dissenting Opinion in District of Columbia et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller. 554 U.S.__(2008).” AccessedAugust 5, 2012, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf.
  44. Target Point Consulting. N.d.
    Target Point Consulting. N.d. “The Ideological History of the Supreme Court, 1937–2007.” AccessedJuly 12, 2011, www.targetpointconsulting.com/scotusscores-labels.html.
  45. Toobin, Jeffrey
    2008The Nine. Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2006 “Discourse, Context and Cognition.” Discourse Studies8 (1): 159–177. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059565
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2008Discourse and Context. A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  48. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2009 “The Study of Argumentation.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, ed. by Andrea A. Lunsford , Kirt H. Wilson , and Rosa A. Eberly , 109–124. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781412982795.n6
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982795.n6 [Google Scholar]
  50. van Rees, M. Agnes
    2007 “Discourse Analysis and Argumentation Theory: The Case of Television Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1454–1463. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  51. van Rees, Agnes
    2010Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. A Pragma-Dialectic Perspective. Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Walton, Douglas , Chris Reed , and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  53. Weiss, Gilbert , and Ruth Wodak
    2007 “Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis.” InCritical Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity, ed. by Gilbert Weiss , and Ruth Wodak , 1–32. Hampshire and London: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Williams, David C.
    2003Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment: Taming Political Violence in a Constitutional Republic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. doi: 10.12987/yale/9780300095623.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300095623.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Winkler, Adam
    2007 “Scrutinizing the Second Amendment.” Michigan Law Review105 (4): 683–733.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2009 “Heller’s Catch 22 .” UCLA Law Review56: 1550–1577.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wodak, Ruth , and Michael Meyer
    2009Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd Edition. London: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Woll, Peter
    1990American Government. Readings and Cases. 10th Edition. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Žagar, Igor Ž.
    2010 “Topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics6 (1): 3–27. doi: 10.2478/v10016‑010‑0002‑1
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-010-0002-1 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error