Can the violation of multiple rights be held to a higher standard than the violation of one alone?
<p>Suppose, for example, we had a statute that 1) restricted speech 2) about keeping and bearing arms.  Or suppose there was a statute the restricted using guns for the purpose of laying them out to form certain words on the ground.  Or suppose there was a statute against saying certain things while holding a gun.  Would that statute be held to a higher level of scrutiny than a statute which only violated one right?  Do rights combine?</p>

<p>If a statute implicates several constitutional constraints at once, it will be invalid if it violates any of them. They "combine" only in the sense that if five Justices agree that a statute is unconstitutional, but three think that is because it violates the fifth amendment and two  think that is because it violates the eighth amendment, the statute would be invalid, but with no majority agreeing on <em>why</em> it is invalid.</p>

<p>Similarly, if a statute could fall under one of several sources of law-making powers of congress, it will be valid if it is valid under any one of them.</p>

<p>Here is an interesting twist on your question. In the opposite direction of what you asked.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Or suppose there was a statute against saying certain things while holding a gun.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There actually <em>are</em> statues that criminalize certain speech while holding a gun. While the same speech <em>without</em> holding a gun are perfectly legal. Assault statutes come to mind.</p>

<p>For example, if you say, "I'm going to shoot you," and you <em>don't</em> have a gun, that might <strong>not</strong> be assault. But if you say, "I'm going to shoot you," and you <em>do</em> have a gun, that might <strong>be</strong> assault.</p>

<p>I know that was a quirky coincidence given the point of your question. But I just thought I'd mention it.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do rights combine?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In theory, no. All statutes infringing upon constitutional rights require the highest scrutiny from the courts. However, as a practical matter, one could imagine a combinatory effect in practice.</p>

<p>For example, when SCOTUS is fully staffed, there are nine justices. And five votes are required to decide a case. Imagine, say, Justice Kennedy (usually the swing vote) deciding a statue that impinges upon two rights. One right Kennedy might not have a problem with impinging and the other he does. Well, in this case, the fact that the one Kennedy does have qualms with impinging would affect his decision and therefore the decision of the court in this hypothetical. So, as a practical matter... rights <em>could</em> produce an (informal) combinatory effect.</p>

us-constitution