I have this question
If the text of the second amendment was part of something other than the constitution would the word "being" be taken with more probability that it refers to that time ?
If so, then it is something that I, at least currently, cant understand.
The same thing shouldn't be interpreted differently based on its source except by how much being part of that source had an effect on the intention of the originator(s) of that thing. The general applicability of the constitution shouldn't be applied in a way that precedes understanding the intention to modify it. The fact that the applicability domain of the constitution is all time doesn't mean that everything in it was necessarily directed to apply in a general unlimited way (and even more so not with things that lack that feature only in their direct application as is the case when the word "being" in the second amendment is taken to refer to the status of things at that time).
No comments:
Post a Comment