What is this statement saying? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 06:33:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  What is this statement saying? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: "A glass of milk, being necessary for a balanced breakfast, the right of the people to keep and own cows, shall not be infringed."
#1
You can only own cows if you use them to obtain glasses of milk that you drink at breakfast
 
#2
Drinking milk with breakfast is just one reason as to why the right to own cows should not be infringed
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: What is this statement saying?  (Read 1964 times)
Good Habit
Rookie
**
Posts: 89
Switzerland


« on: November 01, 2020, 11:41:49 AM »

Quote
"A glass of milk, being necessary for a balanced breakfast, the right of the people to keep and own cows, shall not be infringed."

Coming late to the party..

but this is obviously a false analogy... "A well regulated militia" is an organisation - while a "balanced breakfast" is just an individual joice.

If your proposal would be worded: "A well regulated and prosperous dairy industry, being essential to a balanced nutrition of the population, the right of the people to keep and own cows, shall not be infringed", then we could easily interpret it as just a safeguard against animal right groups or veganism, that might try to ban the "exploitation of cows".

OTOH, if we go for literal interpretation, a "balanced breakfast" -requiring fresh milk, the second part should then clearly mean that not only is everone encouraged to keep a cow in the backyard of his house, but it would be clearly illegal to ban cows from spare bedrooms in your condo or rented city appartement or from being brought to a hotel room.

And if you want to argue that the right to bear arms should be interpreted individualy (and not for "the people" as a group), this could have been worded clearer, say like: "Personal vigilance,being necessary to protect life and property against rampant crime, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

With such a wording,the indivualist interpretation should clearly prevail.

But AFAIK, the founders were clearly suspicous of permanent establishements like nobility, a standing army, a professional judicary and probably professional law enforcement as well, and therefore insisted on trial by grand jury and put emphasis on the Militia part (to defend freedom against abuse of power) - both a Jury and a Militia are  non professional institutions of ordinary citizens.

So,IMO, a correct interpretation of the second would have been that: "the Minneapolis Chapter of the BLM Brotherhood Watch (or whatever they might call their Militia ATL)has the constitutional duty to defend their brother George Floyd against the criminal organisation called the "Minneapolis police departement".
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 14 queries.