|
loquitor--i would think the problem runs in the opposite direction--the requirement to write things down knowing that writing does not really stabilize meanings. which is neither good nor bad, a problem or its opposite.
william--that is the logic of scalia's argument--that there is such a right presupposed--but the distinction between the ability to in principle organize a militia and the other right is seemingly that of what type of gun it is ok to possess--so it seems to follow that a handgun or hunting rifle would fall under it, where an ak would not.
though i suspect that were the argument a strict construction of strict construction, it's have to result in one or another version of the claim that either the constitution cannot be interpreted as commenting in any way on ak-47s because they weren't part of the public meaning of the amendment in 1791 OR that in the platonic aether of forms, under the classification GUNS there has always been the form "ak-47"--it was only discovered and condensed into the shape of a metal object 40 years ago, but was always extant.
presumably, then, the moment of "public reception" of the amendment would also have been one of mystical insight, the Giants who were ratifying the sacrosanct Statements having access at once to this mortal coil 1791 stylee and to the aether of Forms that shaped it.
which is why we, in 2008, have to be subordinated to what the mythical Public of Giants from 1791 Understood.
because we are less, you see.
this seems to follow from strict construction logic, such as it is.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|