If there is but one true vision of the world and how to live in it, then, there being a multiplicity of such systems, the one you are born into is most likely to be false.
Thought of a test for how much weight to give the in-order-to-provide for-a-militia part of the 2nd amendment: What if there were a part of the Constitution that included a statement of purpose that said it derived from something we now see to be factually incorrect, would that effect the prescriptive statement to which it was attached? What if there were something like this: "Although our African slaves have some human-like qualities, they are clearly of a different, and lesser, species. Therefore, each of them shall be counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes." Since can see that the reason cited is based on a provable untruth, does that invalidate or modify the prescription to which it is attached? Or do we go with the prescription no matter the validity, or lack thereof, of the reason given for it? Would it make a difference if the reason were in the record of the framers' debate rather than in the text of the Constitution itself? If you think that the unreasonable reason should have no effect on the prescription, then you should feel safe in ignoring the militia comment. If you think the falsity of the not-our-species comment should weaken or invalidate the 3/5 rule, then perhaps the militia comment should make a difference in your interpretation of the amendment as a whole.
Posts
Thought of a test for how much weight to give the in-order-to-provide for-a-militia part of the 2nd amendment: What if there were a part of the Constitution that included a statement of purpose that said it derived from something we now see to be factually incorrect, would that effect the prescriptive statement to which it was attached? What if there were something like this: "Although our African slaves have some human-like qualities, they are clearly of a different, and lesser, species. Therefore, each of them shall be counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes." Since can see that the reason cited is based on a provable untruth, does that invalidate or modify the prescription to which it is attached? Or do we go with the prescription no matter the validity, or lack thereof, of the reason given for it? Would it make a difference if the reason were in the record of the framers' debate rather than in the text of the Constitution itself? If you think that the unreasonable reason should have no effect on the prescription, then you should feel safe in ignoring the militia comment. If you think the falsity of the not-our-species comment should weaken or invalidate the 3/5 rule, then perhaps the militia comment should make a difference in your interpretation of the amendment as a whole.
ReplyDelete