"Congress shall make no law..."

[Kevin D. Mowbray President]

Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider the
have we *ever* heard anyone argue that: "Congress shall make no law…"
is just a prefatory clause and has no effect on the rest of the
sentence? Does anyone really wonder what Mr. Madison meant when he
wrote that?
Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause because
it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone), he opens
with a noun phrase and rambles for 27 words.

"Second Amendment
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 phrasing is quite clear to the majority of all who read it
and understand the sovereign rights of States. It's only
"unclear" to those enemies of the Republic who disagree with it
and wish to eliminate it.

I suggest that Mr. Madison knew exactly what he was doing: he was
deliberately writing an ambiguous sentence that different reader might
interpret in different ways, thereby providing a way to allow the
Southern slave states to keep their property without explicitly
mentioning slavery in the constitution.

Consider this. Southerners sent their children to the Eastern
states to be educated, and had done so long before Lincoln and
Eastern bankers started the Civil War. Yes, the war was started
over money, not slavery.

40% of the slaves in the South were owned by free slaves.
Bankers weren't making any money from them.

While we're on the subject of constitutional articles,

Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.

I would submit to you that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Nancy
Pelosi have committed treason by failing to uphold their oaths
of office as it applies to upholding the laws of the United
States of America.

[Scout]

Mr. Madison was nothing if not able to write a clear an unambiguous
sentence expressing exactly what he meant for it to say. Consider the
have we *ever* heard anyone argue that: "Congress shall make no law."
is just a prefatory clause and has no effect on the rest of the
sentence?

That's because "Congress shall make no law..." isn't a prefatory clause"

Further if one were to diagram the sentences.. you would find that the
phrase "Congress shall make no law..." is grammatically connected to the
rest of the sentence. Whereas with the 2nd, the nominative absolute clause
is NOT.. thus it does not change, alter, modify or limit in any way the main
clause.

Really dude, it would help if you actually understood English grammar and
sentence structure, because right now all you're doing is showing your
arguments are based only on your utter ignorance.

Does anyone really wonder what Mr. Madison meant when he
wrote that?
Then we move on to 2A and Mr. Madison suddenly seems to lose his
focus. Instead of an opening clause (and, unlike "A well regulated
militia," "Congress shall make no law" *is*, in fact, a clause because
it would be a grammatically correct sentence standing alone), he opens
with a noun phrase and rambles for 27 words.

You're right. He should have simply penned, "The right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed", because the reasons for why this
right shall not be infringed are irrelevant to the established fact that the
people have this right and it shall not be infringed.

Glad we could clear that up for you.