Even though it was not the main thing for understanding the Amendment, not understanding why "the right of the people" was used made me wonder about how that could fit as an expression for the right being recognized. The other side on the other hand apparently found it easier to jump the assumption of self sufficiency to go and look for other reasons for the existence of that right instead of ways of expressions justifying that use. More astonishingly, they did that despite how the combination with the preceding part would lead to a meaningless statement. For me, the guidance of the preceding part of the Amendment made me far away from even thinking that others could have depended on the use of "right of the people" as the foundation for their interpretation of the Amendment. It was relatively very recently that I recognized this as the position of the court after being confused for so long with describing "self-defense" in the opinion off the court as "central component of the right itself", by combining that foundation with the attempt implied in this description to make meaning of that foundation combined with preceding part of the Amendment.
Anyway, even if we take finding no answer for the use of "the right of the people" as justifying the creation of such a strange meaning, now that we see a very valid use for that expression by paying attention to the difference of when the right was recognized from when it existed, that difficulty in creating a meaning with the other view points us to the understanding just mentioned as the answer. As an analogy, assume a person being told to use the exit to go out while he is in a room where he cant see but walls and therefore interpreted that some of the walls might be an exit. But then after he suddenly recognized the existence of a door, would he still continue to have the exit through the walls as a probable interpretation?
No comments:
Post a Comment