Even if we assume that the current interpretation of the second amendment is correct there is still a very strong argument against trying to fit it on our time despite the huge difference between then and now. That argument is very strong and very sufficient by itself and may not need additional support from an external thing. However, strengthening it even more with something from the constitution itself is even better.
The seventh amendment gives the right to a jury trial for any amount exceeding "twenty dollars" . Apparently following the unreasonableness of applying the second amendment on our time and causing all the gun mess blood sheds here was easier for some to choose than just following something that may sound silly because of its low value. As a result it seems that was never implemented.
Anyway, implementing that twenty dollars clause or not is not the point here. The point is what the mentioning of that amount signifies. Was the reason is that those who made that amendment failed to see that eventually such amount may become trivial and unreasonably low? If that is the case then how do you count on their extension of the vision behind the second amendment from then to our current time despite the huge difference in the advancement of weaponry? Which thing is easier to anticipate or predict at that time that the $20 dollars value may diminish or that there will be fighter jets or even any kind of airplane?
Or was the reason for the use and mentioning of the "twenty dollars" clause is that it was written for that time and those who made it were not concerned about how the future may change the significance of that amount? In that case it shows you how much you could be wrong by exaggerating in following the constitution by implementing the second amendment (as the way you currently interpret it) on the current day and age? What support your current position in treating the second amendment as if it was written with even what seems to be the very unreasonable expectation of a scope of vision sufficient to accommodate and contain the modern changes in weaponry even despite such a signal by the twenty dollar clause of the seven amendment? That is especially true when you think about how the second amendment is ,to the best of my knowledge, the only one that started with a justification or explanation. Who knows? May be that clause in the seventh amendment was an intentional signal to the future people to pay attention to what is at their time and follow intelligently.
Both the "arms" in the second amendment and the "twenty dollars" in the seventh amendment are related to things that change in relative significance to its own type with the passing of time , devices and money ,respectively, but you chose to treat them very differently in following your constitution. [(Added 11/11/213) If you think that changes in the way people live made that twenty dollar a trivial amount between then and now then the advancement in science and technology and their effect on the making of weapons between then and now made guns even more trivial in comparison to the kind weapons held by a military.
In addition, the twenty dollars value in that seventh amendment was not justified by a reason for its necessity or importance and you yourself chose to measure its value in today's world. The right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment, on the other hand, was justified by the purpose of militia creation. In other words, those who made that amendment gave you that reason as a measurement target so the amendment itself is calling on you to think about the effectiveness of that right for the purpose for which it was intended even if you do not want to choose to do that on your own.
[(Added 11/12/2013) One very important difference which I cant skip pointing it out directly between the right to keep and bear arms of the second amendment and the right to a jury trial for a value of more than $20 in the seventh is the strong sense of compromise the second amendment showed in creating that right despite the primitiveness of these arms at that time . That right is now being transferred for arms ,although much weaker and ineffective to face weapons of forces that are used in today's world to invade or establish dictatorships (militaries), are much more dangerous on the civilian life. There is clearly nothing anywhere close or similar to this compromise stated or can be seen in the case of the seventh amendment ]
[(Added 11/13/2013) " strong sense of compromise " in the paragraph above should be "struggle to reach that compromise"]
Also, the view that money could change value was clearly out there and is not that hard to be reasoned at that time. The huge field of advancement in technology and science and in turn its effect on the making of modern weapons, on the other hand, was not even close to be seen or something reasoning at that time can reach. You may underestimate these changes because you are accustomed to it but imagine asking someone at that time how foreseeable these changes were to him. That is why it is considered an interesting thing if we find someone who predicted some of the devices we currently use even if it is in a general manner.
I think that it is hard to ask for a better sign from the time the constitution was made telling you that you are exaggerating your dependence on the intention of those who wrote the constitution to have their vision fit changes beyond their time like that of the changes in the technology and science of weapon creation between then and now than that twenty dollars clause]
By the way, according to some source I read even if you adjust the "twenty dollars" for inflation it would lead to ,according to what I remember, less than $7000 and that is still very far from the current requirement of $75000 for federal diversity jurisdiction.
[(Added 11/12/2013) Also, it was decided that the seventh amendment does not apply on the states while, on the other hand, the second amendment was applied on both the federal and state level despite using the state unit in the reasoning contained in it]
No comments:
Post a Comment