The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The unwieldy commas in Amendment 2

The most common printing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

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.

The commas have always bothered me. In short, they don't make sense. I tried Google for an explanation tonight, and got this from Wikipedia:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States:

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.
The wording immediately above makes some sense.

In 2007, Adam Freedman said the following in a New York Times op-ed piece:

Refreshing though it is to see punctuation at the center of a national debate, there could scarcely be a worse place to search for the framers’ original intent than their use of commas. In the 18th century, punctuation marks were as common as medicinal leeches and just about as scientific. Commas and other marks evolved from a variety of symbols meant to denote pauses in speaking. For centuries, punctuation was as chaotic as individual speech patterns.

The situation was even worse in the law, where a long English tradition held that punctuation marks were not actually part of statutes (and, therefore, courts could not consider punctuation when interpreting them). Not surprisingly, lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.

Now I feel better.

6 comments:

caheidelberger said...

Agreed: the amendment as written doesn't make sense. Let's throw the whole thing out on grammatical grounds and require Congress and the states to ratify a new version. That could be fun!

Bob Newland said...

Here's the preferred wording of the new version:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

repete said...

No Bob, Modern law requires a lot more words than that. How else can the judges find the fringe edges when they don't like one of their contestants?

caheidelberger said...

You would simplify things by removing the declaration of intent. I look forward to the Constitutional Convention!

Wayne Gilbert said...

http://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2011/9/22/the-wonders-of-punctuation.html

repete said...

This is fun! :)

Let's eat, Grandma! (invitation to eat)
Let's eat Grandma! (plan for cannibalism)

Slow, children crossing (at a crosswalk)
Slow children crossing

Eats shoots and leaves (a critter's diet)
Eats, shoots and leaves (a very rude dinner guest)

Throw the Yule log on, Uncle John (it's cold, Uncle John)
Throw the Yule log on Uncle John (we don't like Uncle John)

Pardon me, boys (please forgive me, boys)
Pardon, me boys (please forgive my boys)