My Note regarding the Second Amendment and Justice Scalia’s opinion in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Scalia’s diatribe seemed nothing more than a biased argument in semantics. Once his personal argument was made separating the ‘prefatory’ clause: “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State”, there really no logical reason for him to proceed any further with his sophomoric arguments about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. But, once down-the-rabbit-hole, I suppose any self embarrassment had to be hidden under copious amounts of needless dribble, and criticism of Justice Stevens.
To indicate that the comma (,) caused the ‘prefatory’ clause to be entirely independent from the ‘operative’ clause is an insult to any ‘normal’ person’s intelligence, no matter what sources may be offered in defense.
The phrase: “A Panda eats shoots and leaves” changes greatly if commas are introduced, as in: “A Panda eats, shoots, and leaves”. A comma does not separate Ideas entirely, it merely ‘sets the stage’, or possibly even changes the meaning of a sentence as seen here. But, it does Not entirely divide two separate phrases into two independent ‘thoughts’.
Of course the ‘prefatory’ clause relates to the ‘operative’ clause. Otherwise there may have been a period (.) inserted at that same point. The only semi-logical "originalist" argument Scalia might have to that might be that Americans in 1776 never heard of Pandas.
1 comment:
My Note regarding the Second Amendment and Justice Scalia’s opinion in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Scalia’s diatribe seemed nothing more than a biased argument in semantics. Once his personal argument was made separating the ‘prefatory’ clause: “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State”, there really no logical reason for him to proceed any further with his sophomoric arguments about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. But, once down-the-rabbit-hole, I suppose any self embarrassment had to be hidden under copious amounts of needless dribble, and criticism of Justice Stevens.
To indicate that the comma (,) caused the ‘prefatory’ clause to be entirely independent from the ‘operative’ clause is an insult to any ‘normal’ person’s intelligence, no matter what sources may be offered in defense.
The phrase: “A Panda eats shoots and leaves” changes greatly if commas are introduced, as in: “A Panda eats, shoots, and leaves”. A comma does not separate Ideas entirely, it merely ‘sets the stage’, or possibly even changes the meaning of a sentence as seen here. But, it does Not entirely divide two separate phrases into two independent ‘thoughts’.
Of course the ‘prefatory’ clause relates to the ‘operative’ clause. Otherwise there may have been a period (.) inserted at that same point. The only semi-logical "originalist" argument Scalia might have to that might be that Americans in 1776 never heard of Pandas.
Post a Comment