Display:
As there is much political battling around any legislation, obscurity can easily become a tool. It is also useful to hide contradictions in the whole set of laws - so that some come "prove" or do anything. Is there any force that would pull towards clarity in laws? Would anyone do something to set language precision?

A particular phenomenon is absurd length of some law acts, up to over thousand pages. You heard of the Patriot Act, numerous pork-barrel projects and "hidden" details in US lawmaking. Can we compare obscurity and length of laws in various countries, or of different times?

As a concrete example, ponder by what intentions The Second Ammendment is formulated like this:

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.

What is "Militia", why it is stressed first? How a right can be "well regulated"? Is "necessary to the security" a declaration or a condition?

by das monde on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 at 08:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a common form of sentence construction of the time, that was clearly understood.

'A well regulated Militia' meant (then) the temporary deputizing of citizens to train and fight to defend the state/territory - under military command and under military rules.

The right to keep and bear arms was to fulfill that duty of serving in the militia, not for any other reason - according to the amendment as it was understood at the time it was written.

Sentence construction changes. Vocabulary changes. ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 at 08:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the mdern US, the "well-regulated militia" is the National Guard. That's the only way I make sense of the Second Amendment.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 at 08:43:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree. There was also a logistical/budgetary consideration at the time of the 2nd amendment. Deputized citizens were expected to bring their own rifles -  Thus 'keep'. And 'bear' also had the meaning of display, rather than use.

Later in the 19th century, a 'posse' of deputized sheriffs would be formed under the same principles - they brought their own horses too.

The military draft is a form of deputizing, except you are not allowed to bring anything of your own ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 at 09:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did the horses have bear arms as well, or could they keep their legs and hooves?

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Surely thats a whole level of transplant surgery beyond where we are even now?

horses with bears arms would be very scary though

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:33:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series