Guy B. Meredith
Member
Going through old papers I found a set of copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and others I had picked up on a visit to DC. This is the first time I have REALLY read the Bill of Rights.
Firstly I was shook up to note that the 2nd amendment is actually the 4th and thought I had been sold a bogus item, but then noticed the first two originals were not ratified.
Then I took a look at the comma usage. I have seen this as part of the 2nd amendment debate, but have never thought to compare the usage in the 2nd with the usage in the others. After reading the others it appears that there is either no standard of use (spelling was not standard either) or a different standard from current use.
My take is that the commas are mostly irrelevant when translated to current usage and the 2nd should be read with a comma only after the word 'State'. The time spent on discussing the commas seems pointless leaving the definition of milita the only point of argument and writings from the period seem to seal that one simply enough.
Amendment II with original commas:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
With current usage:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
A look at other early amendments and comma usage:
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Firstly I was shook up to note that the 2nd amendment is actually the 4th and thought I had been sold a bogus item, but then noticed the first two originals were not ratified.
Then I took a look at the comma usage. I have seen this as part of the 2nd amendment debate, but have never thought to compare the usage in the 2nd with the usage in the others. After reading the others it appears that there is either no standard of use (spelling was not standard either) or a different standard from current use.
My take is that the commas are mostly irrelevant when translated to current usage and the 2nd should be read with a comma only after the word 'State'. The time spent on discussing the commas seems pointless leaving the definition of milita the only point of argument and writings from the period seem to seal that one simply enough.
Amendment II with original commas:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
With current usage:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
A look at other early amendments and comma usage:
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.