Before discussing the old issues, I want to clear the way from a potential hurdle which I did not address before because I did not think it needs that.
Original Authority Versus Dependency On Facts
The part "being necessary to the security of a free State" should not be taken as originating from the authority of writing the Constitution instead of just being dependent on external reality. The preamble of the document we are dealing with here enacted the rest of that document saying "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,... do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America".
The capitalization of the word "Constitution" there implies that it exists as one single thing. But the order of words of any document is also part of that document. This precedence among the words of a document, which are themselves parts of the document, also implies that they precede that document in existence. Therefore, parts of the Constitution that uses the authority of the Constitution would need to be referred to through their future existence.
The right of the people
This is not needed for the purpose of the Second Amendment argument here. That is because it is about how the part before the second comma does not fit our time when applied. Reaching that conclusion disables the whole part after that comma which contains that right reference. Nevertheless, I still want to point out that because of the reason above, the reference to the right of the people, here, does not establish a right from the authority of the Constitution. And neither does any of the other "right" reference that did not come through their future existence.
It fits this dependance on reality to see how all the "right" mentionings without future reference, in the Bill of Rights, like, for example, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, are common sense rights. On the other hand what is more open for being disputed or considered privileges, like having a speedy and public trial and Assistance of a Counsel, were affirmatively established with a future reference using the phrase "shall enjoy".
There are also two special supports in the Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the argument being made here. The first of those is, again, related to the Sixth Amendment. It starts with "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ..". Although the rights mentioned there must exist for any accused because they are referred to through their future existence, they are still dependant on the part preceding them "the accused". The accused was not referred to through its existence in the future and therefore its existence depends on reality and does not come from the authority of the constitution. That makes the Amendment fits situations where a criminal prosecution does not bring a person to be the accused.
Taking things this way also explains the issue of the $20 value in the Seventh Amendment. The Amendment first Says:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
Unlike "shall enjoy the right" in the Sixth Amendment the right of trial by jury was not referred to within future content and therefore it preceded the authority of the constitution in existence and therefore it is a reference that depends on reality.
Now lets continue with the rest of the Amendment, which states:
and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law
Common law is the rulings of the courts. Of course, those rulings should be rooted at some thinking the courts believed to be correct. Had the phrase "common law" been capitalized, it would have referred to one single thing. That single thing is the end result extending from a snapshot of the thinking root that made it. In that situation we would be forced to select from among specific known common law systems of ruling results and do what can lead to how this amendment was interpreted here as referring to the common law of England at the time of making the amendment. But with the uncapitalized reference we have, the thinking on which the common law ruling result was based can be seen having individual existence on its own and therefore it can lead to different ruling. If that happens, what deserves more to be called "the common law" here, the ruling that has the support of what common law should come from or the one that lost that connection?
So, contrary to the way this has been taken, here we see another example of not forcing a thing but depending on reality with regard to what should be done.
Starting And Finishing the constitution
Just after the preamble, the Constitution starts with:
"Article I Section 1"
This enumeration is needed because if the document has the authority only as one single thing instead of having every component that composes it has its own individual authority from the start, we need something to signal its start to us.
For that same reason we also have the "done in Convention.." signaling the end of the document to us. Otherwise, since it must be taken as one single thing, it could be argued that the document is not finished and therefore it does not have authority.
This singularity concept seems to be the root reason why generally legal documents can incorporate new things only through being amended regardless of how those new things may not affect the already existing things.
Back to the Constitution where we next see:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
What a strange way to start? Why didn't it start directly from what needs to be constructed here, and why did it need to point out that those legislative Powers belong to the Congress even though it also did that indirectly at subsequent parts of the constitution when it assigned those powers to components of the Congress? But we can see justification for all that when we consider the singularity of this document. Since this singularity implies that referring to things through other than their future existences makes the existences of those things dependant on reality, one needs to as much as possible make those references about undisputable existences, in order to set a sure starting point for the constituting action here. Had the above started with, for example, "A Congress of the United States Shall have..." then the part "A Congress of the United States", would lack reality enforcement for the fact that it exists and that in turn would disable the "shall" part because the latter depends on the former. Therefore it makes sense to set the start here using something its existence is as indisputable as what existed in the document being made itself. On the other hand we see that, having set a starting point, both the executive and the judicial Powers establishing sections started with constructing what those section where about constructing.
Now, lets get to our existing issues, starting from citing the text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Amendment refers to "the security" not just "security". Therefore the only way for that to represent not just some special value but any value of security is through having the word "security" inclusive to all values of security. In that case the only role for the word "the" preceding it seems to be to distinguish security as an attribute. But if so then capitalizing the word "security" to make it treated as one single thing seems a better fit. On the other hand with no capitalization we have the domain of selection for applying the significance of the word "the" open to be focussed on only parts of that security even if we have the word "security" in its most inclusive sense.
Also, using the description "necessary" does not seem to fit the situation here if it is just necessity to the security instead of necessity to the security for the sake of the State. But having "the security" about special value of security seems fit that much better.
It is a risky thing trying to argue the interpretation of something as close to the root of thinking as the designation the word "the" adds to things. Actually, in the argument just made itself not only there are designations provided by the word "the", but also the word "value" was used at some sub levels to include in its meaning the kind or type of things, even though the purpose of the main discussion is whether it is the value or the type being designated using the word "the" in "the security".
Now lets continue to the rest.
The first comma has no other potential use here other than blocking the part preceding it from reaching the part following it. The comma has a role there only because of the external connection (as a blocker) to the next clause. Therefore, what the "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to is:
1- The part preceding the comma, which is the well regulated Militia.
2- The comma itself as a blocker for that Militia
3- The concept that was manifested through that well regulated Militia. That concept exist because having the word "Militia" capitalized means that it refers to one single thing. This implies that there is a concept that fitted this singularity.
In other words, what the "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to is the concept of a well regulated that is being blocked.
As it is mentioned in the previous post of this argument, the capitalization of the word "State" makes it refer to one single thing and therefore the word "free" in "free State" does not apply to the parts or components of the State because they do not have individual existences as things on their own. However, even though I still argue that the word security should be also applied only externally, unlike my position in that argument, I no longer base that on the reason just mentioned. Instead I replace that with these two reasons:
The first one is the focus of "the security" and that is the state while being free in the world, not just the state. Moreover it referred to the state as one single thing and that as mentioned above prevented the word free from applying to the components of the State. So how dose not applying freedom internally but still seek to apply security internally fits with referring to that security as "the security"?
However what I want to be the main argument for why the word "security" does not apply on the components or parts of the State as individual things on their own is the blocking of the concept manifestations that belongs to every State. That is because the need for internal security implies dealing with those blocked manifestations.
The same argument just mentioned above also applies to why when applying the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part we should take into consideration only the external environment. In other words, it applies without taking into account any specifics related to the free State in question other than its existence as one single free thing. Because if we do we would be dealing with manifestations of the concept for specific States, and all those are blocked by the comma.
However, even though the blocking of all manifestations make things that much about the external environment, we still need the capitalization of the word "State". That is because without the singularity implied through that capitalization there would be no separation between internal and external environment of a state since its component can also be parts of the external world when viewed as things on their own.
So now what is the concept of a Militia? The court says in its Heller opinion
"But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."
With a scope of enrollment like that, our argument here applies directly. But if the view being taken is that the Militia may not need to include all that range at all times then there must be some measure allowing stopping the grouping at some level and not going to the next. That measure is to build the needed force for the security of a nation mainely from accumulation of fighting power of individual people. Modern militaries also employ ground forces but do not do that for accumulating their individual fighting powers as the main power.
Militia: Concept vs Implementation
I wonder how much of this same question was applied to other issue. In other words, how common is it to question, wherever applicable, the definition of anything at that time for whether it is just for what that thing is in general or if that definition is just about the implementations available at that time for what is at its root a more open concept.
Nevertheless, aside from the support of circumstantial evidences and signs, and the question of who carries the burden of proof here, it turned out that the makers of the Amendment included an answer for this too, despite how taking care of future changes for definitions of things may seem an unrealistic expectation.
The argument here begins with pointing out that taking the part before the second comma as a test rule should not be seen as synonymus with taking it as originating from a neutral point in time. Not only taking the latter position needs to carry the burden of proof, but we have many signs showing how careful attention was given not to make the constitution speaks out of its point in time. For example "who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years" or "who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen" and from the Bill of Rights "wherein the crime shall have been committed" or "which district shall have been previously ascertained by law" or "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars". So "being" here should be taken as a referring to only that point in time. That makes the "a well regulated Militia" part with its blocking by the comma about that time. Like the earlier part of this argument, here again, we see the importance of referring to the concept of a well regulated Militia not directly but through a blocked well regulated Militia. Using that here we can say that the "being" makes the reference to the Militia according to how a Militia exists at that time regardless of the generality behind the concept of a Militia. Had the reference to the concept of a well regulated Militia being made directly, the concept would have been open to its whole generality including implementations not possible at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment