info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "Congress shall make no law..."
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Kevin D. Mowbray President
Dec 19, 2022, 12:35:03 AM12/19/22
to
In article <vmkvph1gvn7hifaif...@4ax.com>
!Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
> sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider the
> First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
> have we *ever* heard anyone argue that: "Congress shall make no law…"
> is just a prefatory clause and has no effect on the rest of the
> sentence? Does anyone really wonder what Mr. Madison meant when he
> wrote that?
>
> Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
> focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
> militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause because
> it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone), he opens
> with a noun phrase and rambles for 27 words.
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."
The phrasing is quite clear to the majority of all who read it
and understand the sovereign rights of States. It's only
"unclear" to those enemies of the Republic who disagree with it
and wish to eliminate it.
> I suggest that Mr. Madison knew exactly what he was doing: he was
> deliberately writing an ambiguous sentence that different reader might
> interpret in different ways, thereby providing a way to allow the
> Southern slave states to keep their property without explicitly
> mentioning slavery in the constitution.
Consider this. Southerners sent their children to the Eastern
states to be educated, and had done so long before Lincoln and
Eastern bankers started the Civil War. Yes, the war was started
over money, not slavery.
40% of the slaves in the South were owned by free slaves.
Bankers weren't making any money from them.
While we're on the subject of constitutional articles,
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
I would submit to you that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Nancy
Pelosi have committed treason by failing to uphold their oaths
of office as it applies to upholding the laws of the United
States of America.
!Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
> sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider the
> First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
> have we *ever* heard anyone argue that: "Congress shall make no law…"
> is just a prefatory clause and has no effect on the rest of the
> sentence? Does anyone really wonder what Mr. Madison meant when he
> wrote that?
>
> Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
> focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
> militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause because
> it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone), he opens
> with a noun phrase and rambles for 27 words.
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."
The phrasing is quite clear to the majority of all who read it
and understand the sovereign rights of States. It's only
"unclear" to those enemies of the Republic who disagree with it
and wish to eliminate it.
> I suggest that Mr. Madison knew exactly what he was doing: he was
> deliberately writing an ambiguous sentence that different reader might
> interpret in different ways, thereby providing a way to allow the
> Southern slave states to keep their property without explicitly
> mentioning slavery in the constitution.
Consider this. Southerners sent their children to the Eastern
states to be educated, and had done so long before Lincoln and
Eastern bankers started the Civil War. Yes, the war was started
over money, not slavery.
40% of the slaves in the South were owned by free slaves.
Bankers weren't making any money from them.
While we're on the subject of constitutional articles,
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
I would submit to you that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Nancy
Pelosi have committed treason by failing to uphold their oaths
of office as it applies to upholding the laws of the United
States of America.
Martin
Dec 19, 2022, 2:20:42 AM12/19/22
to
On 18 Dec 2022, "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> posted some
news:tnouli$783e$1...@dont-email.me:
> In news:vmkvph1gvn7hifaif...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com>
> typed:
>
>
> The Commonplace Second Amendment
>
> Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
> (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998))
>
> The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has
> a
> justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor Volokh
> points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in
> American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights
> contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured.
> Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how
> the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted. In
> particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often
> -- and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent
> overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their
> stated justifications....
>
> https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
UCLA Law School gets a gold star for that one.
Speaking for myself, I've always considered the text of 2A to be quite
clear with no room for misunderstanding.
news:tnouli$783e$1...@dont-email.me:
> In news:vmkvph1gvn7hifaif...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com>
> typed:
>
>> Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
>> sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider
>> the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
>> America: have we *ever* heard anyone argue that: "Congress shall make
>> no law." is just a prefatory clause and has no effect on the rest of
>> Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
>> sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider
>> the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
>> America: have we *ever* heard anyone argue that: "Congress shall make
>> the sentence? Does anyone really wonder what Mr. Madison meant when
>> he wrote that?
>
>> Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
>> focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
>> militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause
>> because it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone),
>> he opens with a noun phrase and rambles for 27 words....
>> he wrote that?
>
>> Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
>> focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
>> militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause
>> because it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone),
>
>
> The Commonplace Second Amendment
>
> Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
> (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998))
>
> The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has
> a
> justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor Volokh
> points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in
> American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights
> contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured.
> Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how
> the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted. In
> particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often
> -- and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent
> overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their
> stated justifications....
>
> https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
UCLA Law School gets a gold star for that one.
Speaking for myself, I've always considered the text of 2A to be quite
clear with no room for misunderstanding.
Scout
Dec 19, 2022, 8:52:41 AM12/19/22
to
> !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
>> sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider the
>> First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
>> is just a prefatory clause and has no effect on the rest of the
>> sentence?
That's because "Congress shall make no law..." isn't a prefatory clause"
>> sentence?
Further if one were to diagram the sentences.. you would find that the
phrase "Congress shall make no law..." is grammatically connected to the
rest of the sentence. Whereas with the 2nd, the nominative absolute clause
is NOT.. thus it does not change, alter, modify or limit in any way the main
clause.
Really dude, it would help if you actually understood English grammar and
sentence structure, because right now all you're doing is showing your
arguments are based only on your utter ignorance.
>>Does anyone really wonder what Mr. Madison meant when he
>> wrote that?
>>
>> Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
>> focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
>> militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause because
>> it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone), he opens
>> with a noun phrase and rambles for 27 words.
and bear arms shall not be infringed", because the reasons for why this
right shall not be infringed are irrelevant to the established fact that the
people have this right and it shall not be infringed.
Glad we could clear that up for you.
Jeffrey Rubard
Dec 26, 2022, 4:18:55 PM12/26/22
to
"As if that were possible!"
Some wonder.
0 new messages