Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Martian: Why would the justification be separated so much from the operative? It seems as if it might as well be an asterisk next to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", instead of it actually being there. But it is there. If people aren't part of the justification (well regulated militia), then how can it apply to them?
|
The justification
is separate from the operative; They are two independent statements. The justification supports the operative, but does not limit or qualify it.
The justification statement could indeed have been included as a footnote, rather than as a part of the amendment itself, and the meaning would be unchanged. I would imagine this was not done because it's often considered poor style to annotate a document consisting of one sentence.
I'm viewing this from a logical perspective, interpreting the words quite literally. There are, of course, other ways to go about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Regardless, your question as to relevance directly challenges the very amendment itself. If the justification no longer is applicable, then the operative becomes incorrect.
|
It would indeed appear that way, wouldn't it?
EDIT -
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
see, now I would have sworn they were, which is why the 5th amendment states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. silly me. I forgot we're in the liberal age.
|
A right is an artificial construct, and is therefore defined by it's creators and maintained or even altered by it's enforcers. Thinking of it as inalienable is silly.