- You said that the Constitution is written in simple English and needs no interpretation.
- You have repeatedly MISUNDERSTOOD and TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT things that I have stated IN SIMPLE ENGLISH.
- I mention that, since you are having trouble comprehending my simple English, there is an INTERPRETATION ISSUE
- This means that, logically, simple English can be INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS depending on the reader
- Hence, the Constitution, written in simple English, can be INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS DEPENDING ON THE READER.
- This DOES NOT mean that the Constitution has different meanins
- This DOES mean that one Interpretation is incorrect.
Does that help you a little? I am sure that you feel that you read everything that I have typed perfectly, but when you repeat it back, it is not accurate. I am sure that you don't agree, but I am the one that knows what I am not only saying, but meaning. I am sure that you don't understand a single aspect of what I am talking about, even though it is written in SIMPLE ENLGISH!
You are taking it out of context... again. I said that it is clear and concise, and that means the meaning of it is just that. It has nothing to do with how I feel, that is just a statement regarding how it is.Not as bad as your memory. . . .
"Should read" is how it DOES READ. It can flip flop either was, and it means that same exact thing. I am only translating it into the language of today so that you, and others like Goobieman, can understand it.Ablative absolute is a Latin construction, and imitations thereof in English are common in the works of authors who were well studied in Latin. The founders were such authors, and I am certain that our second amendment reads exactly as they meant it to read. I'll take the founder's decision, since they were well studied in Latin, over yours, as to how it "should read".
Possibly among many? And you are trying to say that there is no "Interpretation"?Furthermore, it is still a dependant clause construction, and the ablative absolute is not an exclusionatory construction. What that means is, it merely points out one good reason, possibly among many, for what stands alone in the independent clause. It does NOT rule out other reasons or circumstances.
So if the body of the Constitution does not mention arms, and the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep them and bear them shall not be infringed, which takes precedence? Right! The people get to keep their guns, the government gets to butt out.
You are absolutely correct. SCOTUS has screwed up royally on several notable occasions.
What I think many of us would like to know is, whether Smash has anything backing up his position other than just opinion?
He doesn't accept original intent, and I presume constructionism is out.
He doesn't agree with existing SCOTUS law on the subject.
I'm wondering if there's anything more there than "the Constitution should mean whatever I WANT it to mean!"
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Every single one of them.
Have done so for the longest time.
The Second Amendment applies to all fifty states. The states aren't required to pass any laws of their own or nothin', the Constitution has supreme authority.
Has ever since it was ratified, even if it took a war to settle that issue.
Then there's the Second Amendment's use of the phrase "the people", not "the militias", a disctinction the men that wrote the Amendment, being master of the language they were, would have made if that distinction was intended.
Then, of course, we all know there are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those who dig.
I don't feel like digging.
They have no choice they will rule against Chicago like they did with DC.
The 2nd Adm is very clear on this.