The Most Basic Issue

[MMMMMM]

Well it's true--and it is the result of much self-analysis.

Sorry if your limited view appears to you the whole picture.

[MMMMMM]

"excessive bail" is not unclear--although the measure of "excessive" is dependent on the circumstances--the word "excessive" always is dependent on circumstances or comparison: it's the nature of the adjective "excessive." So the clause may be crystal clear but "excessive" is dependent on the overall setting. That's not the same as a clause being "unclear."


"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" is completely clear, though.

[andyfox]

How who's engaging in sophistry?

Yes, of course we know what the word excessive means. What exactly constitutes excessive is the point.

And what constitutes abridgement? Or "free" speech? Sometimes the frames use "abridged," sometimes "infringed," sometimes they talked about prohibiting. They chose their words carefully. So there must be some difference between prohibiting something and abridging it.

Hey, I have no doubt judges decide what they like, either consciously or not, and then write their opinions accordingly. My point is that, right or wrong, this is inevitable.

[MMMMMM]

andy, I'm not engaging in sophistry; I think I'm making an important distinction. Inclusion of a word which has a meaning which is based on a comparative quality and/or on circumstances (e.g. the word "excessive") does not, by itself, render unclear the meaning of an entire sentence or clause. You seem not to be distinguishing between lack of specificity and lack of clarity--and in this context I think it is an important distinction.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

I see nothing at all unclear in the above statement. If there is anything truly unclear in this statement perhaps John Cole could tell us what it is. andy, feel free look up "abridge" in a few big old dictionaries if you think there might be any meaningful quibble about the definition. If you say that "speech" is not adequately defined for all conceivable circumstances, I would again say, please don't confuse lack of specificity with lack of clarity.

"Hey, I have no doubt judges decide what they like, either consciously or not, and then write their opinions accordingly. My point is that, right or wrong, this is inevitable"

To the extent they do it deliberately, or to the extent they do not take some care not to do it accidentally, I think it is inexcusable when dealing with the very foundation of our legal system: the U.S. Constitution. And that some degree of prejudice inevitably exists does not justify that prejudice be involved deliberately, or that it be considered acceptable, merely because perfect non-prejudice is unattainable. The assigned role of justices in interpreting and upholding the U.S. Constitution is specifically to do so without prejudice and without their own prejudices as best they possibly can.

[andyfox]

"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."

So we are allowed to have the arms necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. Or if we see that a well regulated militia is not necessary to security, then the right to have arms. Or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, period, whether those arms relate to a militia or not.

Maybe I'm a bad reader, but that comma after Militia doesn't belong there, nor the one after Arms.

[MMMMMM]

The Second Amendment is tricky and possibly somewhat unclear (genuinely so) because of that comma issue. However I think an interpretation can still be made with a fairly good degree of confidence, thus:

"militia" meant not a standing army, but the common people who would band together for mutual defense in time of crisis or need. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which is necessary for a militia) shall not be infringed. In other words the people shall have the right to keep and bear all manner of arms which would be useful or typical of those used in a militia (and possibly more). This would include at least all light weaponry.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"The Constitution" is too a great extent thematic and symbolic, a revered charter, not a statute or something to be interpreted like a recipe card.

I'll agree that the Constitution is less than a recipe card, but more than purely a symbolic charter.

The purpose of the Constitution is to codify the limits of what the government can and cannot do. Simply having a democratic process does not ensure a free society. Many issues are too important to leave to the whimsy of 50% + 1.

I believe it's importanat to stay as close to what can be discerned to be the original intent as possible, and leave changes up to the amendment process, which is and should be, slow and difficult to achieve.