+266: "tradition, history and the text"

Above is a quote about interpreting the constitution here from the argument of the New York gun case at the Supreme Court. The first question I have here is:

If someone were to have his representation of himself ignored, as a punishment, which one of these two paths would be the harshest: To be treated like a legally minor child, or to be treated like one of the makers of this constitution?  

+265 (second amendment interpretation 200: New Argument For Capitalized References-4)

Here is the answer to what I wondered about in post +262, with a start from the root.

Because of the capitalization it has, the word "State" refers to all what proper nouns of state type target. The word "State" refers to the insides of those targets as separate worlds from ours because proper nouns refers to the insides of those targets as separate worlds from ours. The reason for the latter is that, unlike common nouns,  proper nouns do not use fittings in our world to refer to their targets. This absence of use of fitting in our world means referring to the inside of the target of a proper noun as a separate world because that absence has to be taken as one of the construction elements of a proper noun. If this absence is not taken as part of the proper noun then the same proper noun would not be referring to only one specific thing and that contradicts being a proper noun.