Why don't we recite the US Constitution.

@parados,

Quote:

Well, there have been experts' briefs filed,
e.g., the professional grammarians in HELLER; thay revealed
the exact meaning of the text of the 2A.
That is credit worthy. Thay were not judges.
I approve of the factual certainty that thay provided, qua parsing the 2nd Amendment.

parados wrote:

Would their words still have revealed the exact meaning if a judge ruled otherwise?

Yes; thay 'd parse them out,
showing their work.
If an appellate court encounters egregious judicial error,
the appellate court shoud correct it (e.g. The Slaughterhouse Cases).

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

So, you think it would have been a correct interpretation even if the courts ruled it wasn't?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you think it would have been a correct interpretation even if the courts ruled it wasn't?

WHAT "would have been a correct interpretation" ??

0 Replies

Consistency is good; it makes sense, within reason.
If an appellate court discovers egregious judicial error,
it shoud correct that error,
regardless of how old the error was (e.g., Barron v. Baltimore of 1833)

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you think it would have been a correct interpretation even if the courts ruled it wasn't?

'it' refers to "the words" filed by the people you referred to grammarians.

Do you think their words would have been correct if the courts rules they were wrong in their interpretation?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you think it would have been a correct interpretation even if the courts ruled it wasn't?

parados wrote:

'it' refers to "the words" filed by the people you referred to grammarians.

Do you think their words would have been correct if the courts rules
they were wrong in their interpretation?

Yes; certainly.
The grammarians were not my guys.
Thay were dispassionate, objective experts
rendering professional analyses qua the mechanical operation of ordinary
English grammar as it found its expression in the 2nd Amendment.
It was like an engineering analysis.
Thay also indicated that the rules in question
did not change since the words were written in 1789.
(The grammarians were 100% confident
that the 2nd Amendment protected a personal, individual right
to keep and bear arms, that the Authors
assumed to ante-date the Constitution;
thay recognized that right; thay recognized the duty NOT to infringe it,
but thay did not create it, and so the USSC held in HELLER.)

The court is an expert on the law,
not on a myriad of factual disciplines (including grammar).
If astrophysicists declared that there is a black hole
at the center of this galaxy, and a judge of law
disputed it, the facts remain whatever thay were
before he rendered his judicial opinion.

Interestingly, decades ago, the Russian Communist Party
used to make rulings as to the facts of science
which occasionally conflicted with the facts as found
by Russian physicists; the latter had to adopt
the party line: or else; not so in America.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

So, you are arguing that NO grammarian could possible disagree with your guys? A ridiculous argument David especially for someone claiming to be a Mensa member. You are assuming the writers used the exact same rules of grammar that the people that studied it used. 100% confidence by a grammarian shows me they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It was like an engineering analysis.

No engineer would ever declare something has 100% confidence.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you are arguing that NO grammarian could possible disagree with your guys?

maybe one on LSD

parados wrote:

A ridiculous argument David especially for someone claiming to be a Mensa member.

I 'm glad that the USSC did not find it so.

parados wrote:

You are assuming the writers used the exact same rules of grammar
that the people that studied it used.

U did not read my post to u??
The grammarians attested that there
had been no change in the rules since 1789.

parados wrote:

100% confidence by a grammarian shows me
they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Believe what u want. Freedom WINS. U lose.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U did not read my post to u??
The grammarians attested that there
had been no change in the rules since 1789.

Right.. and there has been no change in the rules of gun ownership since then either.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

U did not read my post to u??
The grammarians attested that there
had been no change in the rules since 1789.

parados wrote:

Right.. and there has been no change in the rules of gun ownership since then either.

Well, yes and no, parados, in that the 2nd Amendment merely
recognized and protected a commonly known
pre-existing right (as per US v. CRUIKSHANK and D.C. v. HELLER),
but as of December 15, 1791 that pre-existing right
was accorded the additional protection
and preservation of the Supreme Law of the Land
and there has been no change since then;
altho unConstitutional usurpations of power
have cheated the citizens out of the exercise
thereof in some states, since then.

Parados, let's not lose sight of the fact
that during the 1700s, there were NO police
anywhere in the USA, nor in England,
until well into the next century. Therefore,
personal failure to be adequately well armed
was like near suicidal irresponsibility,
just throwing caution to the winds.
This had been illegal, in some of the
American Colonies, the same way that it
is now illegal to fail to lock your seatbelt.

David

0 Replies

Why don't we recite the US Constitution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know