It is not a rare occurrence for me to get confused in what I myself was saying earlier. The correction in the preceding post was not needed and this may have been already noticed. The part of the Amendment before the second comma is entirely reasoning even for the snapshot taken with "being" and regardless of the intention behind the second comma. That is simply because, as mentioned in post +151, they put existence over what they said in that part. Had they instead used, for example, the "because" form (Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed), mentioned in the opinion of the court as being equivalent to the Amendment, then that would have put what they said over existence. That is because the second comma would have been at least very open to be understood as for merely separating words not existences and that would have made just stating not reasoning the content of the part before the second comma at least a probable meaning (Although, as mentioned in earlier posts, because of "because", even if existence was seen to be put over what is being said there that would be connecting it to expressing the reason not the reason itself).
One may also notice how much the order of the two parts around the second comma was needed for this. Had they put the reverse of this order then it would have been possible to argue for the content of the part currently before the second comma as being stated not reasoned. (While it is not necessary here, it is interesting how this fits the history of the legislative development of the Amendment. Except for the first version, this order was kept to the end. Also luck, may have added more clarification here because had the two parts of the Amendment been at this order from the beginning then it could be argued that it was left like this unnoticed. But changing that order shows intentional effort suggesting attention. Although, is it entirely out of the question for people like those that it was not luck but they intentionally done that?)
No comments:
Post a Comment