Accepting both the comma and comma-less before "being" versions makes it very probable that the difference in what was intended is not deep or important. The understanding for "being necessary to the security of a free state" for which I argue creates a difference in only the expressions of these two versions instead of also the intentions and concepts behind them that seems to fit sufficiently into that category much more than the other alternative. That is because the alternative of understanding that part as being stated from the authority of writing a constitution and always true gives no reason for causing differences in expressing it. If it came from the authority of writing a constitution what was that those who made the amendment were struggling in expressing? Yes, stating something just for clarifying things does not serve the original purpose of a constitution being a do and don't guide. But that would be, at worst, just like adding fluff to the constitution which is not worthy of causing this difference in the versions of the amendment regarding the existence of the comma before "being".
But on the other hand the understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution, although serves better the purpose of a constitution being an execution book because it affect the execution of the operative part, is much more sufficient reason to cause a cautious attempt in using these two versions of the amendment to avoid misleading.
Another thing that supports that the difference was only in the expressions and not the intentions and concepts behind these two expressions is how in the development process the alternative version ,which was the comma-less before "being" version, came later than many, if not most, comma versions and two weeks or more after proposing the bill of rights. That is because if the difference was in the intentions and concepts that difference would have more probably manifested itself clearly earlier than that especially for something as substantial as stating that part as being always true according to the alternative understanding mentioned earlier.
But on the other hand the understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution, although serves better the purpose of a constitution being an execution book because it affect the execution of the operative part, is much more sufficient reason to cause a cautious attempt in using these two versions of the amendment to avoid misleading.
Another thing that supports that the difference was only in the expressions and not the intentions and concepts behind these two expressions is how in the development process the alternative version ,which was the comma-less before "being" version, came later than many, if not most, comma versions and two weeks or more after proposing the bill of rights. That is because if the difference was in the intentions and concepts that difference would have more probably manifested itself clearly earlier than that especially for something as substantial as stating that part as being always true according to the alternative understanding mentioned earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment