Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I swore off breaking responses up, but there are exceptions:
You are right, I got a bit ahead of myself. And yes, the reference to "A right," as you stated, I agree. But then we move on to this:
Interesting that the Finding referred to Rights as "granted," not affirmed. I will let that stand as an example of what I have been stating for some time- that Rights are granted, they are bestowed, not affirmed - in application of course. The so-called Spirit is that the Rights are affirmed. But those are two separate matters.
The document is hardly defining the Right. The document is offering a general outline of notions. It is the Justices, the majority Finders, that are defining, and setting the parameters of the Right.
I am pretty sure Rights were intended to be for Individuals. Except one point is being missed, that the Founding Fathers, in all of their glorious, infinite knowledge - let's face it, they screwed up! - referred to the Federal Government doing things for the "common good" (I believe it was 51). So, how do we account for this contradictory message, that of Individual, and that of Communal good? It appears that the individual good is contingent on the communal good.
I removed your overall bold and both bolded and capatialized the word that matters. It says "A" right, not the "THE" right. As they use the word "a" that means it applies to any right granted by the Constitution. Had they used the word "the" right then it would only apply to the specific right they were ruling on. It is only through twisting the plain reading one can come to the meaning that it doesn't apply to all Rights from the bit that is quoted.
You are right, I got a bit ahead of myself. And yes, the reference to "A right," as you stated, I agree. But then we move on to this:
Now there could be more in the ruling that makes it only apply to the first amendment, but the quoted part is clear in that it applies to all rights as granted* by the Constitution. The only way for the quoted part to only apply to the first amendment is if one changes the word "a" for "the" which fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence as the word "a" is broad and "the" is specific.
granted* No right is "granted" by the Constitution, it is affirmed.
Interesting that the Finding referred to Rights as "granted," not affirmed. I will let that stand as an example of what I have been stating for some time- that Rights are granted, they are bestowed, not affirmed - in application of course. The so-called Spirit is that the Rights are affirmed. But those are two separate matters.
I will agree in that this talk is all speculative, but only because there is no court ruling listed that refers to this ruling and even if there was it could still be overturned by a later ruling. But the plain English reading of the quoted part is clear. Below will be a further breakdown of the English quote.
"A state" - Meaning any state and not just the specific state in the court case
"may not impose A charge" - Meaning that a state can't require ANY charges
"for the enjoyment of A right" - "enjoyment" - the possession or exercise of a legal right (World English Dictionary). stating that it applies to ANY right
"granted by the Federal Constitution." - stating what document is defining the right.
The document is hardly defining the Right. The document is offering a general outline of notions. It is the Justices, the majority Finders, that are defining, and setting the parameters of the Right.
So by the sentence breakdown it doesn't make sense for every use of the word "a" to be interchangable with the word "any" but then for the "a" before "right" to suddenly be very specific into which right it is referring to. And the second amendment is a right "granted" by the Federal Constitution. The only question then is the age old arguement that the second amendment is a communal right and not an individual right. If it isn't an individual right then it would be mute; but that is a different arguement and the "communal" arguement doesn't make sense w/o taking the amendment out of context and twisting into a triple pretzel.
I am pretty sure Rights were intended to be for Individuals. Except one point is being missed, that the Founding Fathers, in all of their glorious, infinite knowledge - let's face it, they screwed up! - referred to the Federal Government doing things for the "common good" (I believe it was 51). So, how do we account for this contradictory message, that of Individual, and that of Communal good? It appears that the individual good is contingent on the communal good.