<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [lbo-talk] 2d Amendment/Rule of Law (Was: The
curs</title></head><body>
<div>Justin wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>"No, meaning is as unstable as it is whereever.
Believe you me I know better than you how unstable or uncertain it is
in law. That's why they pay me all this money. But Rorty's point is
that you cannot, in democracy, in a free society, make your laws based
on the idea that some highly contentious philosophical theory, like
deconstructionism or Quinean indeterminacy of translation or whatever
is right..."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This is pure obfuscation. It is a question of syntax and
therefore</div>
<div>absolutely clear. In the US Constitution the word
"people" is</div>
<div>plural and not collective and is defined as such in the very
first</div>
<div>word ("We") of the document. If judges ignore
that fact, this simply</div>
<div>is additional proof of how intellectually corrupt the legal game
is</div>
<div>under capitalism. Likewise, a preliminary rhetorical
subordinate clause</div>
<div>("A well-regulated militia...") cannot cancel the clear
meaning of a well-formed principal clause ("The right of the
people...").</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Shane Mage<br>
<br>
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not<br>
consent to be called
Zeus." <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span> <br>
</div>
<div>Herakleitos of Ephesos</div>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>