billvon 3,120 #76 May 12, 2008 ----------- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution . . . --------- Nothing in there about A.C. Brocki, oddly enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 May 13, 2008 Quote----------- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution . . . --------- Nothing in there about A.C. Brocki, oddly enough. Nothing in here about ambiguity, either. "A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." Bonus question: WHO gets the dessert... the chef, or the people?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #78 May 13, 2008 >WHO gets the dessert... the chef, or the people? Well, that's easy. Either that poor little old lady with the 8 kids who is starving on the streetcorner (if you're a democrat) or the troops (support the troops!) if you're a republican. If you think the people should get it - obviously you hate the troops AND the poor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #79 May 13, 2008 QuoteQuote----------- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution . . . --------- Nothing in there about A.C. Brocki, oddly enough. Nothing in here about ambiguity, either. "A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." But that's nonsensical, i.e. the subordinate clause has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence. A more appropriate analogy would be: "The achievement of an altered consciousness being necessary to preserve the sanity of man, the right to psychoactive drugs shall not be infringed." See here you have a subordinate clause, which if true, would certainly justify the main clause. The fact that it isn't true invalidates that main clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 May 13, 2008 QuoteBut that's nonsensical, i.e. the subordinate clause has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence NOW you're getting it. Although, to better match the subjects, it may more likely be: "A well trained helper, being necessary for the utility of the chef, the right of the diners to eat four-course meals shall not be infringed." Yeah, that scans better, I think.... so, who gets the meal? The helper? (Militia) The chef? (State) Or the diners? (People)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #81 May 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut that's nonsensical, i.e. the subordinate clause has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence NOW you're getting it. Although, to better match the subjects, it may more likely be: "A well trained helper, being necessary for the utility of the chef, the right of the diners to eat four-course meals shall not be infringed." How about: "Water being necessary to create jello, the right of surfers to big waves should not be infringed." So is that your assumption, that the founding fathers just threw those words together for no reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #82 May 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut that's nonsensical, i.e. the subordinate clause has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence NOW you're getting it. Although, to better match the subjects, it may more likely be: "A well trained helper, being necessary for the utility of the chef, the right of the diners to eat four-course meals shall not be infringed." How about: "Water being necessary to create jello, the right of surfers to big waves should not be infringed." So is that your assumption, that the founding fathers just threw those words together for no reason? Still haven't read those links, especially the linguistic analysis, have you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #83 May 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut that's nonsensical, i.e. the subordinate clause has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence NOW you're getting it. Although, to better match the subjects, it may more likely be: "A well trained helper, being necessary for the utility of the chef, the right of the diners to eat four-course meals shall not be infringed." How about: "Water being necessary to create jello, the right of surfers to big waves should not be infringed." So is that your assumption, that the founding fathers just threw those words together for no reason? Still haven't read those links, especially the linguistic analysis, have you? Actually, I did. I found this part especially interesting: Quote [Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated." [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.' Emphasis mine. The fact that Copperud acknowledges there is an unspoken "Since" before the subordinate clause, it logically follows that any valid analogy would also have to allow for that implied "since". But the sentence: "Since a well trained chef is necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." makes no sense. There's absolutely no relation between the two parts of the sentence. However, using my example: "Since the achievement of an altered consciousness is necessary to preserve the sanity of man, the right to psychoactive drugs shall not be infringed." makes perfect sense, if it were true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #84 May 13, 2008 Quote"A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." A clearly written sentence, being necessary for a unambiguous statement, the need of an authoritative judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment shall not be denied.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
