Although, like it was said earlier, we are far from needing this measure to argue against the claim of mere clarification for the part of the Amendment between the first two commas, here is another thing, not focusing on "shall" this time, showing how something was taken for its actionable meaning in the constitution despite not calling for that directly.
It is in the Sixth Amendment. The direct meaning for having (actually they used the word "enjoy") the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" merely says that the accused can make himself informed. But it was taken to require the government to give that information to the accused (at least if he requests it).
It is not just that this kind of direction can happen. It also seems hard to find in the constitution that a risk was taken with actionable meaning potential without intending that meaning. It could be argued against this with how the right to have "the Assistance of Counsel" was not seen to always require the government to appoint a Counsel for the accused. This can be answered by pointing out that applying taking the actionable meaning for the accused having the right to be informed does not begin with recognizing that the government should be the informing entity. Instead it begins from recognizing that the accused should become informed if he wants by any valid way. But since that information is only available to the government it becomes obligated to provide that information if requested. On the other hand many persons can provide Counsels for themselves.
Notice how approaching the word "right" from the side of having (or being affected by) it had led to understanding that to require enabling having those rights (for example a Counsel to those who cannot afford it). On the other hand having the Second Amendment approaching the word "right" from the side of not taking or infringing on it, does not seem to have led to any interpretation requiring the government to buy Arms to those who want to have Arms but cannot afford them. The latter thing can also be said about the Forth Amendment. It was not understood to require the government to enable people to secure themselves from unreasonable searches.
Unlike how the other two Amendments focused on what should (or should not) go toward a right, the Sixth Amendment focused on what should come from a right and that connects to the existence of that right. It is not hard to see why that could make the difference above. Focusing on the existence of something in a constitution can be seen as extension to the constitution having creation as its root purpose, and therefore, also imply creation.
So why should things be different with the Second Amendment and focusing on connecting the two parts around the second comma should not be seen as calling for the creation of that connecting action? Taking "being" in the part between the first two commas as equivalent to "always" would not allow this connecting action because the connection is already created.
Discussing things at this level here feels like using the shadows of things to argue for the existence of the sun.
It is in the Sixth Amendment. The direct meaning for having (actually they used the word "enjoy") the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" merely says that the accused can make himself informed. But it was taken to require the government to give that information to the accused (at least if he requests it).
It is not just that this kind of direction can happen. It also seems hard to find in the constitution that a risk was taken with actionable meaning potential without intending that meaning. It could be argued against this with how the right to have "the Assistance of Counsel" was not seen to always require the government to appoint a Counsel for the accused. This can be answered by pointing out that applying taking the actionable meaning for the accused having the right to be informed does not begin with recognizing that the government should be the informing entity. Instead it begins from recognizing that the accused should become informed if he wants by any valid way. But since that information is only available to the government it becomes obligated to provide that information if requested. On the other hand many persons can provide Counsels for themselves.
Notice how approaching the word "right" from the side of having (or being affected by) it had led to understanding that to require enabling having those rights (for example a Counsel to those who cannot afford it). On the other hand having the Second Amendment approaching the word "right" from the side of not taking or infringing on it, does not seem to have led to any interpretation requiring the government to buy Arms to those who want to have Arms but cannot afford them. The latter thing can also be said about the Forth Amendment. It was not understood to require the government to enable people to secure themselves from unreasonable searches.
Unlike how the other two Amendments focused on what should (or should not) go toward a right, the Sixth Amendment focused on what should come from a right and that connects to the existence of that right. It is not hard to see why that could make the difference above. Focusing on the existence of something in a constitution can be seen as extension to the constitution having creation as its root purpose, and therefore, also imply creation.
So why should things be different with the Second Amendment and focusing on connecting the two parts around the second comma should not be seen as calling for the creation of that connecting action? Taking "being" in the part between the first two commas as equivalent to "always" would not allow this connecting action because the connection is already created.
Discussing things at this level here feels like using the shadows of things to argue for the existence of the sun.
No comments:
Post a Comment