Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A small number of people contributed to the language of the Bill of Rights. It seems to me they would have been consistent in the meaning of the words they used. Most well-educated people are consistent in their use of words, and certainly folks like Jefferson were well-educated.
So, why would a word have one meaning in one amendment and a different meaning in another? How can "the people" refer to individuals in one amendment, and only to groups in another?
It is as legitimate to call "the people" collective in the First Amendment as in the Second. IOW, one must have a preconceived idea of singular vs. collective in the use of "the people" to claim it is collective in the Second Amendment.
Again I refer to the (apparently) never-read preamble of the Bill of Rights as to the intent, the perceived need. In the context of the purpose of the BOR, there is no way it's a collective right. Further, how can a group of restraints on the central government (the purpose of the BOR) simultaneously be restraints on individual citizens? That's absolutely contradictory.
Art
So, why would a word have one meaning in one amendment and a different meaning in another? How can "the people" refer to individuals in one amendment, and only to groups in another?
It is as legitimate to call "the people" collective in the First Amendment as in the Second. IOW, one must have a preconceived idea of singular vs. collective in the use of "the people" to claim it is collective in the Second Amendment.
Again I refer to the (apparently) never-read preamble of the Bill of Rights as to the intent, the perceived need. In the context of the purpose of the BOR, there is no way it's a collective right. Further, how can a group of restraints on the central government (the purpose of the BOR) simultaneously be restraints on individual citizens? That's absolutely contradictory.
Art