+270 (second amendment interpretation 204: Another Argument For Capitalized References )

This one is head scratching simple and direct, yet could very probably seen as the best.

Picking things from recognizing that capitalized references are general references to what proper nouns refer to, one could simply just say that those references do not refer to the parts of their targets as individual existences because proper nouns should refer to specific things. Taking the target with its parts also as other things with it, means the reference would be to a group and not specific. 

The concept of a proper noun is similar to the concept of a point in geometry. Even though there is no real end to how any area can remain dividable, we treat points as indivisible things in order to construct the geometrical world.  
The burden is on the opposing side to prove that the requirement that what a proper noun refers to should be specific, stops before reaching the equivalent of the indivisibility of a point in geometry. That is even more required here where the references were not directed toward things known only by their proper noun names. Instead, the capitalized references in the amendment used the unnecessary general reference to proper noun targets only.