Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
um...this makes no sense. even at a grammatical level, it makes no sense. "the people" is plural. it is collective. it is necessarily collective. i suppose you can twist it around to function as a singular==but that's private language stuff, the sort of thing that you read about in transcripts of conversations amongst schizophrenics.
from the oed, the etymology of the term "the people"
i suppose that if you can erase the 21st century and replace it with the 18th, you can also erase the linguistic conventions of the 18th and replace them with speculative conventions from the pre 15th century. why not, since at this level there is no distinction between "the original sense" and "playing fast and loose"---both converge of "i see what i want to see."
|
then maybe you should compile all of that in a neat amicus brief and explain to the USSC why they were wrong in US v. Lopez. They seem to be of the opinion that 'the people' referred to individuals.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|