Also related to post 104, I think that I need to be more accurate in expressing both my answer and what I am answering. I am arguing against seeing "of the people" being formulated that way in order to directly express the quality of being natural right. The theory I am suggesting is that, other than stating to whom the right belongs, the purpose of "of the people" is not to directly point out any quality of an identity. Instead, the direct purpose is limited to pointing out existence of that identity. More specifically, the purpose is to point out existence not created by the Amendment for that right using only the level of identification needed for that purpose. This separation between whether something is or is not to be created by the corresponding Amendment ought to be encountered first in the process of creating the Amendment. Also, whether an integral part or an addition to the purpose of using "of the people" to state that the existence the right has is not being created by the corresponding Amendment, there is a passive reference to the right and in turn whatever qualities it has and that can hardly show leaving a need for a direct reference.
No comments:
Post a Comment