But it’s not clear, which is why there has been so much scholarship on it. Saying over and over “it’s clear!” doesn’t change the fact that it’s not and the context matters.[quote=“Jewbacca, post:4088, topic:223365”]
It’s like recitals in a contract. Helpful, maybe.
Nope, because constitutional language is never “mere surplusage.” The prefatory clause is a condition, a qualifier. If it wasn’t, Madison would have left it out.[quote=“Jewbacca, post:4088, topic:223365”]
But irrelevant if the actual terms of the contract are not ambiguous.
It’s not irrelevant because it is a direct part of the clause qualifying the rest. You don’t get to pretend that language was never inserted because it hurts the result you want. Absurd.[quote=“Jewbacca, post:4088, topic:223365”]
And the independent clause in the 2A is very clear
Even standing alone, it’s not all that clear - the BOR didn’t apply to the states. So what does the right entail - walking down the streets of New York your favorite rifle even if New York says you can’t do that pursuant to a law passed on public safety grounds? Did the Framers intend for the 2A to trump state laws?
Does the super clear language answer any of these questions?