LANGUAGE LOGICAL ROOTS AND THE WRIT FOR THE COSTITUTION, AND THE INTERPRETATION FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Content At A Glance
This book is composed of five chapters: Referring And Existence, Referring And Singleness, Common Noun Referring, Dealing With Commas, and The Interpretation For The Second Amendment.
Chapter one
Referring And Existence
Before we start I want to help better prepare the reader by bringing to attention that because I am trying here to express reasoning the language, I consider my writing exempt from the same rules I argue for, and count on understanding my intention beyond the technicality of my expression even much more than, and also on top of, how I on my own may write loosely or choose the easier way and count on that. Now let us begin the discussion.
In considering communication through a language, one thing that is often overlooked, and it is that what we generally consider as existence is not the most fundamental level to start with. Yes, entity references in a speech intended to be a sentence are related to some environment at focus. But that by itself is insufficient. That is because that gives us only mere thought existence for those entities. That is the only absolutely guaranteed existence. Existence beyond that is information that the sentence itself need to convey about the entity references in it. The just made referring to thoughts here is not about thinking. Thinking does not create thoughts, it just finds them. On the other hand, unlike entities, any verb (finit verb) must convey beyond mere thought existence. That is because verbs refer to the creation or ending of things, and that cannot happen for mere thoughts, and that is because every thought has everlasting existence. For example in K moved from A to B we have [K at A] (I am using brackets here like parenthesis in math) existed before the moving but did not exist afterwards. This cannot happen for [K at A] as mere thought, and that is because [K at A] as mere thought has everlasting existence. Therefore [K at A] must had beyond mere thought existence. Similarly, [K at B] did not exist before the moving action but existed afterwards, and that cannot happen to [K at B] as mere thought, and that is because [K at B] as mere thought has everlasting existence. Therefore [K at B] must have beyond mere thought existence. Since mere thought existence on its own carries absolutely no information value, the capability of verbs to establish beyond mere thought existences for entities is why every sentence must have at least one.
So, the sentence itself could build beyond mere thought existences for the entity references it has. However, that does not come as directly as one might wish. As shown in the example above, beyond mere thought existences were established for [K at A] and [K at B], not K, A, and B, which are our subject and object (Although at a more detailed level they belong to different grammar categories, technically we can consider every component on the subject side as a subject and every component on the object side as an object, and this level of details is all what we need here (However, while the object side extends from the verb to the end of the sentence, the subject side may not be the whole other section of the sentence, and chapter four justifies this.)). Establishing beyond mere thought existences for the subject and object of the sentence is the reason behind the concept of tenses and why in this language, for example, there are twelve time related specifications for covering actions occurring in the three basic time divisions of past, present and future.
The problem described above is limited to action verbs. Stative verbs can combine the subject and object but still establish beyond mere thought existence for them separately. That is because with stative verbs there is no effect. What stative verbs convey through combining the subject and object is just the relationship they have. For example, the sentence Jen likes apples can be said to convey the existence of her liking for apples, not a change from not liking them to liking them.
The change that the stative verb expresses is not about the interaction between the subject and object. Instead, it is the result of just going through the passing of time. For example the stative verb "has" in Jim has a car gives us a period of time during any point of it [Total of N clock ticks, and Jim having the car] existed then no longer existed when the total of clock ticks becomes N+1 because now we instead have [Total of N+1 clock ticks, and Jim having the car] existing. Because thoughts have everlasting existence and therefore cannot be created or ended, that implies beyond mere thought existence for both of those combinations (Although one of them is good enough here). And since we have no effect there, that implies beyond mere thought existence for Jim and the car.
Having that in our arsenal, let us now deal with how to establish beyond mere thought existence for the subject and object of finished actions when those actions have remaining effects on them. The solution is to refer to them through another relationship associated with the effect of the action. The key to this relationship is the past participle of the action. Whether targeted through the same referring to the subject or separately, an object (a receiver for the effect) is something which every action must have just like that it must have a subject. The past participle is the effect of the action at the points that effect is transferred from the subject to the object. At that connection point the subject becomes the owner of the effect giving it to the object. So, by mentioning an entity as the owner of the past participle of an action on another entity we are also indirectly expressing those entities as the subject and object of the past action related to that past participle.
If no effect for the finished action remains, then just the past verb would suffice to bring beyond mere thought existences to the subject and object. That is because, if either of them no longer exists after the action finished then it must have/had beyond mere thought existence. That is because thoughts have everlasting existence, and therefore can neither be created nor ended. Otherwise, having the subject/object existed before and after the finished action makes the latter establish beyond mere thought existences for them through their association with the total of its occurrings. Here, before the action ended [the subject/object and total of N occurrings of the action] existed. Then after the action finished that thing no longer existed, but instead now [the subject/object and total of more than N occurings of the action] exists. Because thoughts have everlasting existence, that implies that those combinations must had/have beyond mere thought existence. And since there is no effect involved in those combinations, their beyond mere thought existence implies beyond mere thought existence for the subject/object.
Let us now get to continuous actions. Being the initiator of the action and therefore the closest to it, the subject of the continuing action can be uniquely identified from among other potential doers through describing it as incorporating that action. This is expressed using verbs-to-be to connect the subject component of the sentence to the present participle of the related verb. So for example just like saying Jen is fit or Jen is tired one can also say Jen is studying. Despite how they seem to belong there, verbs-to-be are not stative verbs. If they were, this would have not been allowed. Verbs-to-be do not connect the subject from its outside to the object. Instead they create the former as incorporating the latter. That is why, since future references are expressed through their relation to the present, with future references we are connecting rather than creating from zero there, and therefore verbs-to-be would be replaced with the verb "be", which works, like all verbs other than verbs-to-be, through connecting the subject to the object. And also because we are creating rather than merely connecting from the outside, establishing beyond mere thought existence for the combination of subject and object as affected by each other is what we seek rather than what we want to avoid here.
The continuity we just discussed occurs within the current time. To refer to continuity having a time range extending from the past, we incorporate this solution into the same method used earlier for finished actions with remaining effect. The finished action in this case is the being of the subject itself in the finished part of the continuity. So, to establish beyond mere thought existence for the subject here and also indicate such continuity, we make that subject take the subject role in a sentence conveying its ownership of the effect of its being in the finished part of the continuity, using the past participle of be (been). Because existence as doer can remain as effect only if the doer is continuing the action, this indicates continuity of the action.
For future actions, we need to begin from the role of the modal verb indicating the future. If the subject or the object did not exist at the current time but shall exist in the future, or vice versa (the subject or object exist at the current time but shall not exist in the future) then it must have beyond mere thought existence, and that is because mere thoughts have everlasting existence. Otherwise, before the future action, we have [the subject/object and total of N clock ticks] existed. Then taking the time leading to the future action into account implies that after the action that thing no longer existed, but instead now [the subject/object and total of more than N clock ticks] exists. Because thoughts have everlasting existence, that implies that those combinations must have/shall have beyond mere thought existence. And since there is no effect involved in those combinations, their beyond mere thought existence implies beyond mere thought existence for the subject/object.
So, according to the argument above, because the effect of the action would not be there yet, referring to the future start of any action brings beyond mere thought existence to the subject and object of that action. But while the future is indicated through the modal verbs, how can just starting the action be referred to? It is the present verb. That is because taking continuous actions out of the way frees the present form of the verb to recognize entering an action as itself being an action and limit its referring to that. This also allows the present form of the verb when used on its own as the main verb to refer to multiple separate occurrences of the action regardless of any remaining effects of that action, and therefore it can be used for expressing facts and habits (the simple present tense). But referring to the future start of an action needs to employ the present verb to refer to the entry of an action for both single and multiple occurrences.
When referring to an action in the past within the future, then following the modal verb we apply the formula discussed earlier for referring to actions with remaining effects. Unlike actions done in the past on its own, and therefore their effects may no longer be there, here we do not need to consider that other possibility. That is because every action must have its effects remain for some time, (Otherwise it would not have a past participle). So, here, regardless of how short the duration of its remaining effect we can choose to refer to the past action at its effect still there period.
Chapter Two
Referring And Singleness
Although I have argued before about absolute singleness in referring, I missed the argument that goes directly to the root of the matter. The functionality of being a noun which it shares with being a name requires an absolute one to one connection. This includes what the target is composed of. They should be considered only for their roles as parts of that target, not things on their own. With the proper noun, this one to one connection is applied directly to an identity. On the other hand, with the common noun, the one to one connection is applied first to an abstract, and that allows for extending the connection to all instances of that abstract (Chapter three has more about how the common noun works).
At the level of each instance, the common noun can be taken like the proper noun, and that would be also indicated through capitalizing it. But we can also take everything the instance is composed of, as having complete existence, rather than existence just for its role as part of the instance, and that would be indicated through not capitalizing the common noun. Yes, singleness is needed to refer to anything, but when we consider everything there according to all its capacities then that singleness would make no difference within the environment of the referring. Taking the parts of the common noun as things on their own leads to that all the generalities to which the common noun belongs would be applicable and selecting the intended target would totally depend on the context. So clearly capitalizing as a sign to indicate singleness according to how a noun is used is much more needed than reserving it to tell us whether a noun is common or proper, which is a fixed thing that is always part of the definition of the noun, which should be known anyway. Besides providing no justification for the capitalizing rules the grammar out there itself calls for, those rules themselves seem in general noticeably explainable with singleness of the target. Of course it all depends on the specific application in each case and there is no general rule, but the probability of referring through singleness can explain thinking that there are such rules. For example, one rule calls for capitalizing names of the days and months but not centuries. This fits because the shorter the duration of a time period the more it fits being looked at as whole rather than in parts. Most grammar professionals probably also agree on that the seasons should not be capitalized. There is a factor in play here other than the duration. The names of the seasons are very commonly used to target the kind of weather associated with it. But a season is just a time period. That is why we hear about "the official start" of this or that season. The kind of weather is incorporated into them. So the season needs to be taken with individual existence to the weather part of it in order to link the season to the generality of being a time period during which there would be such weather.
Also in support of the view connecting capitalizing with singleness is the capitalizing of only the singular subject speaker pronoun (I) in this language. This can be explained if we take into account how this pronoun can be used for direct representation. Other singular subject pronouns have to refer to their targets through the external view applied to them. So if that view applied singleness and we indicate singleness through the pronoun we would not be able to refer to the targets at aspects other than those represented in that view. This also applies on the pronoun "We" if it includes referring to other than the self. And since the choice of whether an action is directed toward the object as one single thing or not belongs to the subject, singular object speaker pronoun is also generally not taken in singleness.
Then we have the requirement to capitalize the first letter of the sentence. A punctuation mark delimit the sentence, but this tells that the sentence must be taken according to its system and structure (Even this is not just a convention. The mechanism of how this work can be better understood through what chapter four brings to attention).
Now, let us take some single target examples from the constituting writ (To do more toward avoiding confusions, I want to, in addition to the note I put at the beginning of this book, bring to attention here that throughout this book, if I capitalize a word, I intend for its target to be taken as one single thing, but not capitalizing a word means just that I am counting on the reader to understand my intention even if that word needed to be capitalized and was just written capitalized in the same paragraph). The writ starts with:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
"Powers" shall be dealt with in chapter three.
Singleness of Congress, Senate, and House, each is needed in order to allow considering that entity according to the internal system it has for presenting its whole self to the outside as one despite being composed of multiple things (Members). The same applies to the United States, and we shall see later what makes the target here single. For "Representatives", it is better to also continue into A1S2P1 saying "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature". Singleness is needed for each Representative in order to have the person according to only the role of being a representative. A representative can be taken according to the generality of being a person, but a Representative cannot be, and that is because the person part of it exists there to only serve its role in making a Representative. Then in line with that, we have the House described as composed of Members, not members, and here also the singleness prevents including the personal capacity. A member is also person, but a Member is not. The same applies to "Senator" in "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,..." (A1S3P1).
Following the distinction above we can clarify the issue of having the same Congress that proposed the first amendment assigns chaplains for itself. Apparently some views took that action as indicating that congress did not care enough about the first amendment part which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Others took it to support that the amendment part is about actions leading to establishing religion or a religion (It is also called "the establishment clause" rather than "the respecting clause"). The fact is that this action would have constituted a law respecting an establishment of religion had Congress been composed of representatives and senators rather than Representatives and Senators. But here the respect to the establishment of religion can be from them at their personal capacities only and what they did at their official capacity is just to appropriate money for self accommodation.
Back to our work which reached the capitalizing of "Year" in A1S2P1. Singleness of Year is needed because we want the choice to occur just once within the year. And just like this, capitalizing as a sign for singleness can also clarify how "shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years" in P1S1A2 does not require the President to hold the office for only part of the four years. Capitalizing the word "Term" disables this possibility, and that is because it does not allow recognizing individual existences for the parts of time it is composed of.
Singleness of People is needed in order to allow them to have an internal process leading to one result for their choice on each election issue.
One can see here with regard to the plurality of the word "People" that there would have been no ability to refer with singleness to the whole if that whole comes in the form of plural driven from the singular. That strongly suggests itself as the reason for having some singulars have irregular plural form. Since each has its use, I do not think they were intended to replace the regular form.
Singleness of each State targeted with "several States" fits recognizing the internal authorities of those states on the matter instead of treating them as just a place of inhabitance. For example, without that singleness, one may argue for persons in a state, who are not legally considered residents there, to participate in the election for the representation of that state in the Congress.
As with, for example "Representatives", singleness of Elector in "Electors" prevents applying it as other generalities to which an elector belong, like for example being persons or citizens.
Singleness of Qualification is related to the part at the end of this chapter.
Singleness of each target in "Branch of the State Legislature" prevents taking it for other than its official role. Had it been "branch of the state legislature" then, "branch", for example, would have allowed, for example, the qualifications to relate to its members at whatever personal capacities they have.
The unique linguistic quality of the constituting writ exists in only its first ratified part and the bill of rights excluding the eighth amendment. Despite being made among the good parts, I think that people already perceive the weakness in its wording for what seems to be the intended meaning, and the material in chapter three supports them more on that. One can easily contrast it with how the original writ conveyed similar intentions using the singular form preceded by "No/no" (for example "No State", "No Person") for such general denial. Also, uses like for example "All legislative powers" , "All Impeachments" and "All Bills for raising Revenue" support that the plural on its own does not necessarily include all instances.
I think that there is good support in history for that this amendment was included or at least allowed to be in this form in order to acknowledge roles of some special persons who wanted it and/or not lose them being part of the unity on the bill, and therefore it was not subjected to the same scrutiny in its wording as other parts of the writ and the bill. Historical reasons can also explain the way the eleventh amendment was worded, despite being that close to the bill and the original writ. I am referring to that case of 1793 and the ruling of the supreme court on it. How much the states could have been eager to void the courts from such power suggests that for the sake of achieving that purpose, choosing fits for congress like the earlier individuals could have been sacrificed.
Those two amendments share an issue of interest here, through "Excessive bail" of the first and "The Judicial power of the United States" in the second. Specifically, our issue is with capitalizing the adjectives "excessive" and "judicial" ("Excessive" being the first word in the sentence does not take away other implications of its capitalizing). Indicating singleness through an adjective requires taking all things having that description, as one single thing. So, here, "Excessive bail" refers to bail of all things excessive rather than bail that itself excessive, which apparently is the intended meaning. And "The Judicial power of the United States" targets the power of all things with judicial side. Therefore the prohibition of the amendment also takes away the power of Congress to legislate for that matter. It even takes away the power to amend the constitution with regard to that matter.
At first I took capitalizing an adjective as meaningless thing. But then I put more effort into that after noticing "Executive" in the "the Executive Authority" of A1S2P4. That paragraph says: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies". Here we have "Executive" targeting all things with executive side, as one single thing. This allows for the execution of such an internal task to be through the delegated authority of the executive Authority of that State. On the other hand, we see in A4S2P2 ("A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime") uses "executive Authority" rather than Executive Authority for such a task requiring external representation from the state making that demand.
Singleness applied through a description (which in this case is a past participle) is also why "the United States" is singular. And given that, as we shall see in chapter three, the plural in this language does not have identity on its own, the more important than the singularity implication of singleness is that through the consideration it gives for that the target can have an internal system, singleness is what allows considering the United States as an added entity rather than necessarily competing with the States on their own internal systems.
Another capitalizing for an adjective I noticed later is that of "Grand" in "Grand Jury" in the fifth amendment. So "Grand" here indicates that this Jury belongs to or represent all things having the description of being Grand, as one single thing. Singleness of Jury allows it to represent itself to the outside according to an internal process.
The other new singlenesses in A1S2P4 ("When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies") are:
First we have Representation and Election, and the part related to them is at the end of this chapter.
Singleness of Authority shall be discussed in chapter three.
The "Vacancies" in "such Vacancies" refer to vacancies in the Representations, and therefore singleness is needed for each Vacancy for the same reason it is needed for each Representation.
The other part we took from the constituting writ when we were discussing capitalizing the adjective "Executive" is A4S2P2.
Singleness for the target of "State" in all its occurrences here requires taking it with the authority on the matter, not just an inhabitance place.
Singleness for each of Treason, Felony, and Crime is needed to prevent applications based on generalities to which they belong like for example being bad things.
Singleness for Justice and Jurisdiction shall be dealt with in chapter three.
Singleness of Demand prevents the extradition from occurring based on other generalities to which a demand belongs like for example being a preference.
Probably working or completing the work in the writ to bring attention to capitalizing as a sign for singleness, writing the bill of rights (minus the eighth of course) risked having more vulnerability to the context and capitalized only when needed. So, let us get to the capitalizing there. In the first amendment, Government need singleness in order to allow the target to control its access for the petition right. Yes, too much restriction on that access may abridge that right, but that does not mean requiring the government to be accessed through any part of it for any petition.
The second amendment shall be dealt with separately in chapter five.
In the third amendment, Soldier needed singleness in order to prevent the restriction from applying on the target as a person, and that would have been enabled with "soldier".
Singleness of Owner is needed because, there can be multiple owners, and singleness allows them to have a system for representing themselves as one to the outside.
Singleness of Oath shall be dealt with in chapter three.
The target of each Warrant in "Warrants" needed singleness because the probable cause should not relate to it only through a generality to which that warrant belongs. For example, having probable cause for a car does not imply having it for a boat just because they both are vehicles owned by the same suspect. The emphasis on particularity in the amendment adds special support to this explanation.
"Grand Jury" of the fifth amendment was dealt with earlier. The amendment continued to the part about the exclusion from the Grand Jury requirement, and there singleness of War is needed in order to prevent the reference from applying based on other generalities to which a war belong, like for example being an intense disagreement and opposition.
In the sixth amendment, singleness of State in "of the State and district" needed to apply on the target with its formal capacities. For example a State can require a potential juror to be a resident according to its rules for recognizing residency. On the other hand, because it refers to just a place for inhabitance, the "district" did not need to be capitalized to indicates singleness for its target. One can contrast this with the reference of "District" in A1S8P17, which says that the Congress has power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)..." creating a self representing part not under the authority of any state around it.
Singleness of Assistance and Counsel shall be dealt with in chapter three.
For the seventh amendment, singleness of Suit in "Suits" is needed in order keep the reference to the value in controversy applicable at only the individual Suit level. With singleness of Suit, the value in controversy in each suit exists only for its role in that suit.
Singleness of Court is needed in order to make that prohibition applicable only when it takes the court role.
Singleness of Constitution is related to the issue below.
Up to just couple of months ago, this chapter was supposed to end here. But then I noticed an additional general singleness application in the writ, and this one is special in that it also relates to verbs. When using a noun referring to the process through which a verb occurs, applying singleness to that noun makes that noun refers to the Process, and therefore just the end result of the process would be the target. The dual use for the noun related to the verb "enumerate" in A1S2P3 provides special support here. During the description to the process the reference was to Enumeration ("The actual Enumeration shall..."), then following end of the description and a semicolon separation, we read "and until such enumeration shall be made,...". Another interesting introductory application here is the singleness of the Expiration targeted in A1S3P2. Using "expiration" instead would have allowed the seat vacating according to the arrangement specified there to occur at any point during the expiration process.
In case there is some confusion about the word "Constitution", through out all its occurrences in the writ that word refers to the end result of the process of the verb "constitute", not to a document. Having the preamble of the writ says "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution" while presenting the writ does not imply calling the writ by that name. For example, even though the two are as associated as here, if a person says while raising a hand holding a paper for a recipe: I present to you this wonderful desert would that be taken to mean that that person meant the recipe itself is the dessert?
The word "inspection" in "...except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws" (A1S10P2) is another example for targeting the process not just its final result. On the other hand, with "Writs of Election" in A1S2P4 the target is the final result of the process, and that is because the aim is just to fill those vacancies. Had the reference there been to Writs of election, those writs would have been more fitting to be about the way used to carry out the election.
With the "respecting an establishment of religion" part of the first amendment, taking this application for singleness into account favors the "respecting" focused interpretation and counters the one out there (the "established" focused interpretation). Targeting the process of the verb "establish" rather than just its end result does not fit taking "establishment of religion" as a reference to what result from establishing religion. On the other hand, targeting the process of the verb "establish" rather just its end result fits well taking "establishment of religion" as a reference to what religion established. Requiring the association with religion to have begun from the root of the establishment process safeguards against incorrectly extending the reference because of how big the domain of religion can be considered. Otherwise, it could be argued that even doing good things in general is an Establishment of religion.
Although the present participle incapsulates the verb itself, referring to it as one single thing allows for the verb to be only part of its internal system, and therefore the target of the reference is, as with the kind of noun above, also just the end result of the occurring of the verb. So, there is no need to recognize for that a category separate from the present participle.
Chapter Three
Common Noun referring
The countable common noun fits every instance at the same time. Dealing with this fit to target what we want is done through determiners. Using the determiner "any", we can convey that it does not matter which instance is taken as our target. Using the determiner "every" or "each", we can convey that all the instances are our target. The definite article and other definite determiners can be used to convey selective targeting. But how about targeting only one instance of the countable common noun but with conveying neither identity specificity nor identity openness? Only languages that begin referring to entities from their mere thought existences have the mechanism to enable this, and that is what the indefinite articles are for. The "indefinite" here is about not conveying definiteness, not about conveying no definiteness. For example one could say I took a car to the repair shop in reference to the speaker's own car. Similarly, not conveying identity openness does not mean conveying no identity openness. For example, one could say I want an apple intending the reference to fit any apple. The only thing the indefinite article determines about the instance to which it refers is its belonging to that common noun. So the only thing we have on which to build this referring is the abstract related to that common noun, and that works because whether a reference is to an identity or just abstract does not make a difference to the capability of verbs to extend the target of a reference from mere thought to beyond mere thought existence. So for the indefinite target we choose the latter, which is what we produce from combining the indefinite article with the common noun.
It may seem like using the numeral "one" provides an alternative solution to the above, but it does not. That is because it either conveys or does not convey definiteness, and therefore it must be incorporating the work of the definite or the indefinite article.
The plural in this language does not need indefinite article. That is because it is not taken as a thing on its own. Instead it is taken as multiple individual instances of the singular common noun. So for example "cars" is just a shorter way to refer to a car and possibly another car and possibly another car....
This language may also allow using the common noun with no determiner in a sentence, but most other verb structured languages do not. The reason for this could be the way with which the connection of the common noun to its instances is perceived. That common nouns may represent more than one instance at same time cannot be explained through direct connection with each of those instances. The common noun cannot be at same time the name of different things. Instead, this language takes the common noun as one thing composed of all the instances of an abstract.
Now to the uncountable and the issue of referring to less than its whole. Some other verb structured languages seem to deal with this through articles called partitive articles. Probably because they are intended to work the same way indefinite articles work with the countable, they seem to lack the capability to refer with definiteness to less than the whole.
To see how this language deals with this issue, let us begin with better isolating the need here. We do not need our reference to the uncountable to exclude the whole. We just need our reference to fit even less than the whole. Targeting the uncountable as one single thing can achieve the latter. That is because considering something as uncountable implies considering the issue of recognizing a quantity of it an internal issue, and singleness allows for having an internal system for representing the self to the outside. So because of this internal system I can say for example There is Water in the bucket even if not all the water is in the bucket, and without depending on the context for that. We do just like that when we say for example Senate of the United States approved the bill when the bill was approved by less than total majority. We can do that because the Senate has an internal system that allows approval by part of it to be taken as its approval. Likewise the uncountable taken as one single thing also has an internal system that allows less than all the thing to be represented through all the thing, except that this system may not require that portion to be more than half of it.
Now, let us deal with the capitalized words left for here from chapter two. First we have "Powers" in A1S1 ("All legislative Powers..."). Although "Powers" is plural, each Power remains internally uncountable, and therefore we need singleness to allow the reference to target less than the whole in each case. That was for the Congress. On the other hand having this same word uncapitalized in the tenth amendment leads to reserving the whole of each one of those powers to the States and the people.
Regarding "Authority" in A1S2P4, one should not miss how using singleness to deal with the uncountable allowed for using that common noun without concern about whether it would be taken as countable or uncountable. When taken as countable multiple authorities can, as with "Owner" in the third amendment, still be called "authority", and therefore we need singleness to allow it to have an internal system to represent its whole self to the outside, as one even if it is composed of multiple authorities. And if it is taken as uncountable then singleness makes the reference applicable on less than all of the targeted authority. Singleness also prevents applicability to other generalities to which authority belongs like for example being power or ability.
Following that, let us get to the capitalizing we left in A4S2P2. Considering singleness of Justice, let us first ask, why did that part need to refer to justice to begin with? It could have referred to just fleeing from there. One of the first answers one may think of here is to allow such extradition only when the issue of justice is sufficiently there. Singleness of justice allows for excluding negligible quantities through the internal system of the uncountable.
For "Jurisdiction", as discussed earlier, the countable common noun is composed of all instances, and therefore taking it as one single thing here leads to sorting out competing jurisdictions, if any, to only one.
Now lets get to the amendments and what we left off them. We have the word "law" in the first amendment, and it was capitalized in all its occurrences in the original writ but never in the bill. In case referring elsewhere to the application or execution of a law as that law causes some confusion, that is just figurative speech. A law is just a rule, and any rule can exist without its application. And it may also seem that in "to be prescribed by law" and "shall have been previously ascertained by law" singleness is needed because different laws can affect each other and therefore we need to refer to them as one single thing in order to allow for resolving that internally. That is an incorrect conclusion caused by not taking the word "law" at the same comprehensiveness of its use within the context.
We also left for here singleness of Oath in "Oath or affirmation" in the fourth amendment. As with Jurisdiction earlier, Oath is composed of all Oaths, and being taken as one single thing here requires taking into account how they offset each other.
I am also not going to skip over "affirmation" here, at least because that word was what led me to the issue of applying singleness on verb processes, at the end of chapter two. Unlike the Affirmations in the original writ, this one is about the process created by the verb "affirm" and is not a declaration taken at just its face value. For example, there could be enough suspicion in the character of a person making an affirmation, to prevent the character part of the affirmation from supporting the declaration it is making.
The word "affirmation" here refers to every existing affirmation. This emphasizes better than using an affirmation, that including the rest according to the connections they have to any of them is implied in calculating whether the latter support or does not support probable cause for the warrants.
Singlenesses of Assistance and Counsel in "The Assistance of Counsel" are needed to assure none negligible quantity. Without it, the role of the definite article could be taken as limited to the type of assistance of counsel, and therefore it could be considered required at, for example, only the most basic level. Although it may be fulfilled through a lawyer, I think "Counsel" here refers to the advice and instructions.
Capitalizing of "Congress" in the first amendment is an application of special interest here. That is because despite the weakness I see in the view that, at its root, the bill of rights was not applicable to the states, taking that reference as targeting only the main Congress felt weakening the other position. Now, instead, I see things flipped the other way around. As we know, the target of the common noun "Congress" is composed of all Congresses, as one single thing, and the singleness allows that thing to have an internal process to represent itself. But with, for example the Senate, we have all its members voting about the same thing and therefore those votes can be combined into one representation. On the other hand, every Congress relates to a different jurisdiction, and therefore combining them would still refer to every Congress.
In the writ, where the reference is applicable on other Congresses, the main Congress was never referred to as just Congress but always "the Congress". Article five started with "The Congress" rather than "Congress" even though it is about a power suggesting itself as already reserved to the main congress as changing the Constitution of the United States.
The word "Congress" was used without definite article to refer to the main Congress in only five locations in the constituting writ, and in all of them the preceding material already limited the applicability of the reference to only the main congress. The first of those is during its creation ("a Congress of the United States"). The second is at "Neither House, during the Session of Congress" (A1S5P4)). This reference to the main Congress did not need the definite article because a definite article was applied to "Session" making the reference target the session implied in A1S4P2 for the main Congress which was refered to there as "The Congress" ("The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and..."). The third is at the end of A1S8P16 which says that the Congress shall have Power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
Because the Militia has part of it in every state, only the main Congress has a complete jurisdiction on it, and therefore the reference above is applicable only on it.
The fourth is the next paragraph of that same list, and it gives the Congress Power " To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and...). Because the area created by cession of particular States is not under the authority of any Congress except the main one, the "Congress" here fits only the latter.
The fifth is in A1S10P3 which says "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay"
Especially when taking singleness into account, one could very strongly argue that every prohibited action above involves the state crossing out of its jurisdiction, and therefore the reference to Congress is applicable to only the main Congress because it is the only one having a complete jurisdiction. Also, the paragraph just above it was dedicated all to the issue of state taxing imports and exports, but stated obtaining "the Consent of the Congress" a requirement for that. The prohibition for Duty of Tonnage in the other does not conflict with this clear contrast between the two paragraphs. Duty of Tonnage is about only passage while an imports or export also involves the State itself as target for receiving or departure, and therefore it also has jurisdiction on it based on this aspect of the action.
Finally, we have in A1S3P7 usage for "Judgment" similar to that for "Congress" in the first amendment. That paragraph starts with "Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not...". Does anyone take that as not referring to every judgment in Cases of impeachment? And how that work is explainable here just like we did there. The common noun "Judgment" is composed of all Judgments, as one single thing. Because every Judgment relates to a different case, that translates to referring to every judgement.
Chapter Four
Dealing With Commas
We know that when reading a sentence the references in it are required to be taken sequentially according to the already set direction of the language. In languages where the sentence cannot convey beyond mere thought existence unless it itself builds it, this precedency in referring leads in the same direction to precedency in existence in the information structure of the sentence. That implies existence containment in that structure according to the same direction. Except for subject-verb and verb-object, the way components of the sentence relates to each other are susceptible to the effect of this dependency in existence. Therefore the correct order for constructing the sentence goes in the opposite direction to reading it.
As with sentence ending punctuation marks, commas are positioned, attached to the preceding part and spaced from the following. But the most significant common practice sign for the conclusion above and not just that the parts around a comma are not created equal comes through the use of conjunction words when preceded by a comma. If the order of constructing comma separated sections is in the direction of reading then the words used for conjunction between those parts would have preceded rather than followed the comma separating the two sections. But constructing the comma separated sections from last to first, which makes us encounter the conjunction word rather than the comma first is what connects those sections together in the sentence.
Clearly there is such use for conjunction words in the constituting writ. Then we also have cites there where constructing comma separated parts of the sentence in the direction of the sentence leads to strange or even absurd meaning, as in, for example the already noticed issue of how A2S1P5 would seem to restrict the eligibility to the Office of the President to only those who existed at that first time of establishing the Constitution, even if they are natural born citizens. The related part of the paragraph says: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". But if we construct the related comma segments here in the opposite direction to reading, we would have "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" applied on "a Citizen of the United States" then we meet the "or", which in combination with the comma preceding it allows the preceding part ("a natural born Citizen") to be on its own.
Another questionable meaning resolved through our direction in constructing comma separated sections is related to that $20 specificity in the seventh amendment. The related part is:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"
It does not obligate right to trial by jury for every case fitting that requirement. Applying the construction order in the opposite direction to reading, we would be constructing "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" before the $20 part, and therefore we would see that the main verb ("shall be") takes the reference "the right of trial by jury" to its beyond mere thought existence. Having that reference already connected to its beyond mere thought existence implies that "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars" cannot alter which things that reference targets. So the latter just tells us at the group level where this right cannot be ignored if it exists. And this group level view for "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars" also explains using the plural form ("Suits") in the preceding section.
Now let us take the familiar sentence structure starting with a section having no main verb, with that section being separated by a comma from a subject, main verb, and the rest of the sentence. Prepositions and adverbs have the capacity to refer to an environment or container. At such capacity, they can be placed at first position in the sentence, and the rest of the sentence would be taken relative to that container, and that is because of the discussed dependence in existence, brought by the precedence in existence, brought by the precedence of the sections there. So there is no difference in treating such arrangement between here and out there. But it is a different story if that first section starts with any other grammatical category thing, and that is because all of them can only refer to things, not containing environments. So, we see that when the section at the start is a participle phrase, the grammar out there requires a specific component in the section with the main verb to be the intended target. If no such component exist or if it exists but not directly next to the comma separating the participle phrase then it would be considered as invalid and called dangling or misplaced modifier. That understanding does not explain the role for the comma following the participle phrase, or even account sufficiently for the article preceding the component next to the comma if there is such article. For example, in saying Playing tennis, the man got very tired why is there a comma? and even if we ignore the comma and just combine the parts around it, it would refer to Playing tennis the man.... while apparently the grammar out there take that as The playing tennis man got very tired or The man playing tennis got very tired. And how about how much and where such situation has been occurring in the language. In its section about "Dangling Modifiers" Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says about these kind of placements "Now when the same construction can be found in the writings of Thomas Fuller in the 17th century and a speech of Richard Nixon in 1983, you might suspect that it is a very common one indeed. It is, and a venerable one: Hall 1917 cites studies that have found it as far back as Chaucer; he himself found it in the writings of 68 authors from Shakespeare to Robert Louis Stevenson". Then, at the end of the section it also says that such dangling modifiers are "common, old, and well-established in English literature".
Here on the other hand, through taking entity referring in the sentence from the mere thought level, we have a better way for understanding such sentence structure, and can justify all those placement "mistakes". And whether the section at the beginning of the sentence is a participle phrase or the so called "absolute construction" they both are handled the same way here. As we know, the order of the sentence here requires the section having the main verb to precede the section with no main verb in the order of construction. And because the main verb takes every reference there to its beyond mere thought existence, none of those references can be combined with any of the references in the preceding section to form a new reference. But also because of the sentence structural dependency, the beyond mere thought existence established for the section with the main verb depends for its existence in the environment at focus on the beyond mere thought existence of the preceding section, which was left on its own.
Although it has no main verb, the section preceding the comma may still have beyond mere thought existence through a present participle positioned in a way that if it were a verb it would have established beyond mere thought existence to components on its sides. The present participle would establish beyond mere thought existence for every reference in that section if the related verb occur. For example in the construction Easy work, the task is about finished, the part preceding the comma cannot convey beyond mere thought existence, and that is because it has nothing through which beyond mere thought existence can be brought to the entity reference there ("Easy work"). And because of the dependency according to the order, that makes the whole structure not valid sentence. That is because it has zero potential for conveying beyond mere thought existence in the environment at focus. On the other hand, because of the present participle and where it was placed, the part preceding the comma in Work being easy, the task is about finished can convey beyond mere thought existence. A present participle is a noun referring to a container encapsulating a verb occurring in its own time dimension. So, here, if that time dimension crosses the time of the environment at focus (in other words if the related verb occur) then that would establish beyond mere thought existence for every reference in that section (the verb is also what makes separate references from what is around the present participle). And because of the order dependency of the sentence, that implies existence of the section with the main verb in the environment at focus.
I have seen few examples use past participle in place of the present participle in such constructions. Because the past participle does not incapsulate a verb, I, clearly, do not think that make correct sentence.
The sentence structure discussed above was described as starting with a section having no main verb, rather than a section having no verb in general, in order to exclude verbs of relative clauses. Whether there is a comma separating the relative pronoun from the noun phrase preceding it or not, the only relationship between the relative pronoun and what precedes it and to which it refers is that of dependency in existence, and therefore the verb does not establish beyond mere thought existence for that preceding thing. Relative adverbs work the same way but they include the target of the dependency. For example "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State" is equivalent to The Time at which vacancies happen...".
Even based on just usage, I do not know how the guaranteed existence view was able to survive an expression as "weather permitting" in how it indicates conditionality in absolute constructions. Unlike the opposing view, even one valid example for the conditionality of the part lacking a main verb in such sentence structure represent substantial support, and that is because the conditional view can explain what the established existence view can but the other way around is not possible.
Commas can also separate a sentence component from a verb that would have established its beyond mere thought existence had no comma been there. In the absence of such comma handling the connection between thought and beyond mere thought occurs during the creation of the sentence. But when there is such comma, handling that connection occurs during taking the information from the sentence.
Let us begin with the writ here by going into those numerous cites we find when searching for ", shall", and look for the essential reasons for handling the subject from its mere thought existence there:
1- In A1S4P1 we have "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof".
The subject is required to be handled from its mere thought existence in order not to require the prescribing to include things that are not part of serving the purpose but are just consequences to acquiring beyond mere thought existence. For example, a room for voting cannot exist without color for its walls, but is not necessary.
2- In A1S5P4 we find "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for...". This is a reference to the session of the assembly required in A1S4P2. Handling the subject from its mere thought existence is needed in order to target the session as merely how it was according to that assembly. Allowing it to incorporate beyond mere thought existence additions not part of its concept implies that that original attendance number can be reduced and the session would still be considered the same thing, and this would allow either House to adjourn partly without the consent of the other.
3- In A1S6P2 we find "..., and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office". The reference to the subject needs to be handled from its mere thought existence, and that is because it is about the United States just as it is constituted here. Whatever not part of that concept (including necessary consequences) but considered part of the United States because of having its concept acquires beyond mere thought existence are not included through this reference.
4- In A1S7P2 we find "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,...". The subject here needs to be handled from its mere thought existence because the target is only the original Bill without other things that become attached to it because of the discussion through which it goes.
A1S7P3 has two more of those comma separation. But given that there is no shortage of other examples here, I did not want to spend time on the basic understanding of it which I do not readily get.
5- In A1S9P8 we find "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State".
The reference to each State needs to be taken at its mere concept level in order to exclude offices that come as consequence to that concept acquiring beyond mere thought existence. One also should not miss the need for the colon separator here. Without the role of that colon in making the references in the following sentence within the environment of the preceding sentence, the pronoun "them" would have referred to the states not the States. Capitalizing that pronoun is also not a solution here since it is not plural driven from the singular form.
6- In A1S10P2 we read "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States"
The second subject ("the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports") needed to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to make that applicable only when there is a net produce. A simple if any would have not been a good substitute. That is because since for every inspection instance, those duties and imposts could be more or less than the inspection cost, and we have an on going situation here, the target of "the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports" could include a new net calculated periodically.
7- In A2S1P2 we find "...but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector". Because of the reference to persons holding an office of trust or profit under it, the United States here needs to be taken as mentioned in item #3.
8- In A2S1P5 we find "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".
The subject needed to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to refer to existence of the Constitution according to merely its concept. As pointed out earlier even what we experience as thoughts in the mental environment is beyond mere thought existence.
9- In A2S2P2 we find it saying in reference to the President "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers,..".
Handling the subject from its mere thought existence here requires the Senate to be taken according to merely its concept. The Senate as well as the House of Representatives was created to represent at the number of members set for them. Being at less than what they are supposed to be composed of is just a consequence to having that concept acquires beyond mere thought existence. So, here the Senate must be at full capacity, and "a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business" (A1S5P1) is not applicable.
10: In A2S4 we read ( The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on..) the subject needs to be applied from its mere thought existence for the same reason as #3 earlier.
13: In A3S1 we read "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be..". The subject needs to be handled from its mere thought existence because, as in #3, the reference is to the judicial power of the United States existing according to its mere concept. This was needed for this power because, unlike the other two, it is invokable from the outside.
14: Also in A3S1 we find " The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". The subject here needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to target the courts as they exist according to only their concept. For example the paragraph may not apply on magistrate Judges.
15: We find in A3S3 "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury". As with item #4, the subject here needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to restrict the reference to each Trial to only the original issues without including issues generated during the Trial process.
16: In A3 S4 P1 we read "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or..." The subject needs to be handled from its mere thought existence for similar reason as that in #3. Treason here is defined for the United States existing according to only its concept. However, as indicated through "them", which refers to the states, not the States, all things are included in the determination for applicability of that.
17: A4S2P2 says:
"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
The subject needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to make the reference to "A person charged..." applicable on not just one fit but every fit (It is also applicable to no fit at all).
18: In A4S2P3, the subject (No person...) would not have needed to be applied from its mere thought existence had the paragraph had only the negation part. But the requirement "but shall be delivered up..."makes going back to mere thought existence for the execution needed to account for, as in item #17, every fit and also no fit at all.
19: In A5 we read "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments".
The same reason in item #9 applies here on both Houses.
20: At the end of Article 5 we also find "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" The subject needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to require the Consent of the State as it exist according to merely its concept.
21: In A6 P1 we find "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be.." The same explanation for item #8 also applies here.
22: In A6 P1 we find "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". The explanation items #8 also applies here.
23: In article 6 paragraph 3 we find "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". The comma separating the subject makes this Oath or Affirmation requirement relates to only the United States and the several States as they exist according to only their concepts (Item#3 again).
24: In article 7 we find "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution...". The subject here needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to make the ratification valid only if it is valid on the convention as it is originally set to be.
25: In the fourth amendment we find "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...". The subject there needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order for the right not to continue existing even though what validated it no longer exists.
26: In the seventh Amendment we find "...and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"
The subject here needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order to target the original fact on trial without including things added to it because of going through the trial process.
27: In amendment nine we find "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
The subject here needs to be handled from its mere thought existence for the same reason in item #8.
Although against "are" rather than "shall", that comma separation in amendment ten is also for the same reason in item #8.
For object position separation, we have the separation of "a Compensation" in the parts about compensating the President (A2S1P7) and the Judges (A3S1).
The second of those two parts prohibits diminishing that compensation while the first prohibits both diminishing and increasing. But how would those restriction work if the Compensation can incorporate changes and still be considered the same entity? Therefore the Compensation needs to be handled from its mere thought existence in order for its beyond mere thought existence to be considered at what it was originally set at. On the other hand, the part about compensating members of Congress (A1S6P1) has "a Compensation" without that comma separation, and it also does not have any of those prohibitions.
Unlike when they start the sentence, even when they refer to containers, clauses and phrases, of adverbial or prepositional type, placed in the sentence at or following the subject part are, just like any other component in the sentence, dependent on the main verb establishing beyond mere thought existence for them. Therefore, if they are needed to be conditional and/or applicable for every fit, as if they were at the start of the sentence, then they would require comma separation from the main verb in order to be handled from their mere thought existence (Which is how they are handled when they come at the start of the sentence). Although we saw in that list verb separation applied to them in the subject position, probably much of the comma separation for the just mentioned purposes occur at the object position. Picking from the writ, we have ",when elected" in ("No Person shall be a Representative...who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen") illustrating such conditional application. A3S1 provides an example for prepositional phrases of established and none established existence targets, placed next to each other. The related part says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". One Supreme Court must exist while the inferior Courts may or may not exist at any number, and therefore the reference to the latter needed to be separated from the verb with a comma while the reference to the former did not need that. With P2S7A1, which says about how the president should react to a Bill "If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall..", I remained for long time thinking that the comma in ", with his Objections" allows the President to return the Bill without stating any objection, until I noticed that I should have taken the separation as being from the verb as applied to the bill (in other words from the whole "shall return it") not just the verb on its own (in other words from just "shall return"). This flips the conditionality to that only with stating the objections the president is allowed to refuse and return the bill. It would have been that other way, had it been, for example ...he shall return it and, his Objections....
Chapter Five
The Interpretation For The Second Amendment
Let us start with pointing out related purposes served through the capitalizing there. Singleness of Militia does not allow it to be taken according to generalities to which a militia belongs, like for example the generality of being a group. Singleness of State requires taking it as something with its own internal system for representing itself to the outside. Also there, the meaning of weapons in general would have been included for applicability on the target of "Arms" had it been referred to as "arms", but singleness prevents that.
Directing our attention to the structure of the amendment, let us begin from the second comma. This comma divides the text to two sections fitting the participle conditionality structure discussed in chapter four. Moving on to the third comma and its separation for the subject from the verb, we already took an example of separation for similar purpose in the fourth amendment. By requiring the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, to be handled from its mere thought existence when applied, the existence of that right (in other words the existence of what validates it) would need to continue in order for the requirement not to infringe on that right (in other words not to infringe on the capability of the people to keep and bear Arms) to continue. And since the existence of that right depends on satisfying the condition preceding the second comma, the continuity of this satisfying is also necessary for the continuity of that no infringing status.
Applying The Conditionality
As with how it is taken out there, let us first work as if the first comma is not there, and begin by asking: Does what the part preceding the second comma is about also include the Militia serving a role for other than the State to which it belongs? Who gives weight to such possibility here? So, having eliminated that consideration, one now asks: Given that there is only one State associated with each Militia, why was the indefinite article used to refer to that State ("a free State")? The focus being the external environment of the State is a top answer here. And the description of being free adds significantly to this fit. Then that was strengthened even more with the selectiveness of the definite article ("the security of a free State" instead of just "security of a free State").
Such bringing of focus would have been very arguably more than good enough to exclude the out of focus had there been total separation of domains between them. But here we still have more. That is because had that part been "the security of free state/State", there would have been no way for it to mean internal security without external security. The world has been and continues to be filled with examples of States free as States among other States while the people are not free within their own State. But how many examples are there for States that are not free as States among other States but the people are free within their own State? The probability that the latter can exist is so low that there is no way that a reference to not just security of a free State but "the" security of a free State was made counting on it. So if external security is that much implied through internal security, why bring the focus to the former unless you want to exclude the latter?
That was one argument and now let us include what that first comma adds to us. As discussed in chapter four, Since the section preceding the second comma would have beyond mere thought existence only when a verb satisfying the participle "being" occurs in the environment at focus, the first comma in that case would be separating a verb from its subject, and therefore requires, as discussed earlier, handling the subject from its mere thought existence. Therefore the beyond mere thought existence for the well regulated Militia should be taken according to merely the concept without including things that are not part of the concept but become part of the well regulated Militia through the beyond mere thought existence of that concept. Because of this, the well regulated Militia cannot serve but the State of its creation, and therefore cannot be necessary but to that State.
Going deeper in the concept of Militia frees us from even depending on the "a free State" part to support that the purpose is only the security needed to keep the State free among other entities in the world. Although the constituting writ itself refers to calling the Militia "to execute the Laws of the Union and suppress Insurrections", such uses are only a consequence to the concept of the Militia acquiring beyond mere thought existence. The concept of Militia follows from the oneness of belonging to a shared land. It is the self defense aspect of that oneness. It depends on the same loose coupling creating that kind of oneness to create its force by combining individuals self defenses. So, clearly roles involving being for part of the nation against another part are not applicable to the Militia taken according to only its mere concept.
By the way, for the usage of the word "Militia" out there one should also not forget to account for that they could be based on taking Militia as militia.
Now, would anyone think that in this day and age, the security required to keep a State free in the world needs a well regulated Militia? They could have referred to just a Militia rather than well regulated Militia and it still would have been hard to imagine answering that affirmatively. But adding the description of being well regulated shows much better how much the necessity to which the amendment refers is about the practicality and the probability for the need and success of the Militia rather than just the principle.
