I want to start here with saying that this is being posted within the time allowed by the rules of the Supreme Court to file an amicus curie brief for case 18-280.
I do not know how the judges of that court decide many other issues if the overwhelming signs here are still not enough to make them do that on this issue. In any case, when I sensed a demand for more argument despite taking the case above, this time I focused more on going directly to specifically what should be done when applying the amendment instead of arguing the aim. It turned out that in addition to the overwhelming number of signs and the big picture here, there is a path that tells what should be done at a much higher specific level. All that is needed for this path is included in the part between the first and second commas, with special dependence on the words "the" and "State".
The Word "State"
Unless things were preset for a different direction, capitalizing any word implies recognizing it externally according to the meaning of that word. Therefore "free State" refers to the state that is free at that level of granularity in existence. This combination takes the meaning of "security" to be protecting being free at that level.
This applies to states like this country or France or India and even those with internal dictatorships as long as they are free in their external existence. But it is not applicable to internal states like the states in this union individually, even if considered as States in the world because they are not free externally. The constitution itself stated that these states here cannot enter into agreement on their own with a foreign State. Of course, we are talking here about the domain of a general applicability test for the Amendment which has nothing to do with the application domain of its part after the second comma if this test gets passed.
No special treatment being given here. There is so much dependency on taking things this way everywhere that it is very hard to imagine the world running without it. For example if somebody says this president is not carrying out his responsibility correctly why should that be taken as a reference to his official duties, not, for example, his duty to his family? Or if I say he is a good writer about a person, the listener would understand it to mean that the person to whom I referred is good at writing something, even if both the listener and I know that person is much better at something else, like for example being an athlete? The word "writer" does not refer to the action of writing but to the person doing that action and it is the same person being both an athlete and a writer so why referring to him as good writer should be taken as if I said he is good at writing or he writes good?
The reason behind all that is that at least when what we call something with is clearly a matter of choice that choice also invokes its environment for the intended meaning. Here we clearly have the word "state" chosen to be capitalized. This brought its environment to direct the meaning of the word "free" preceding it. This combination, in turn, brought the environment to direct the meaning of the word "security" because, again, a choice was made to refer to only free States instead of any State.
But shouldn't being in a construction mode of something give priority to the local meaning and therefore "State" here should be taken as a reference to the States in the union? Despite that the answer to the former is an affirmative one the latter does not follow here and that could be where the first comma shines the most for its effect. That first comma causes temporally escaping the building mode to the outside and that takes the word "State" back to its general meaning instead of the one it acquired because of speaking locally.
The Word "the"
The Amendment refers to "the security of a free State" not just ''security of a free State". The definition provided by the word "the" for the word "security", preceded in effect the description provided by "a free State" for that same word. Therefore that description applies to "the security" not just "security". This implies that taking the definition provided by the word "the" for the security to which the Amendment refers as only possible for distinguishing a type of things and not also a specific selection within that type itself, is wrong.
Just simply adding a comma immediately after the word "the" would have reversed the precedence in effect described above allowing "the security" to apply on any security related to "a free State" and the definition provided by the word "the" would then serves as selecting from only the different kind of things related to "a free State". But even if there were no such alternative, arguing against that precedence in effect on the ground that it is the result of the position of the words, needs to explain why should we see that the form of expression was given priority over the intended meaning when constructing the Amendment.
Also, since there is no comma preceding the word "the", the security to which the Amendment refers is for the one applicable to the whole world at the State level, not to the environment of any State in the world separately.
And because of having the part of the Amendment before the second comma exists separately and not in a dissolved way as in saying
Because a well regulated Militia being/Is necessary to the security of a free State, the right....
it cannot be argued that the reference to security there, is only for the security at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment