Chauncey Wealthyman graduated from Pritchett a small college in Missouri at the top of his class in the first decade of the 20th century. He went to graduate school at M.I.T. and upon graduation developed a system that rewarded him remarkably well so that he felt an obligation to donate money back to his college.
He wrote to President Uriel Sebree Hall of Pritchett College the following: “A science building being necessary to properly educate students in science, I am donating ten million dollars to the school for that purpose.” President Hall wrote back to him: “Thank you for your most generous donation. We will now be able to use your contribution to improve our standing in the field of athletic by constructing a new athletic building and facilities for our athletes.”
Chauncey wrote back to the president complaining that he set out the purpose of his gift and expected the college to abide by his wishes. In response President Hall explained in writing back to Chauncey: “The letters prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit the second part, the operative clause.” In other words the college felt free to use the money in any way it saw fit.
We saw something like that just recently. Fred Eshelman sent $2 million to True the Vote on November 5, two days after Election Day. He sent another $500,000 to True the Vote a week later. In effect he believe his donation to True the Vote was because it said it planned “to launch lawsuits in swing states, to gather whistleblower complaints about issues with the election, and to conduct “sophisticated data modeling and statistical analysis to identify potential illegal or fraudulent balloting.””
“True the Vote announced on November 17 that it was dropping lawsuits it had brought in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”
Justifying its action “The group’s president and founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, blamed “barriers to advancing our arguments, coupled with constraints on time.” She added that that “the lawsuits represented only a “fraction” of its work.”
Making it more succinct it is as if Fred Eschelman wrote: “in order to help you file lawsuits, interview whistle blowers, and identify fraud, I am donating 2.5 million dollars.” Catherine Engelbrecht pressed for time decided that prefatory clause announced his purpose but it did not limit the operative clause which was giving it the money to use whatever way it wanted.
One final example. The Bill of Rights of the United States has the following language in the 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.” Justice Antonin Scalia examined it in the decision in the Heller case (District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller) and he wrote that the Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
It’s sort of like saying that when someone says, “I want you to build a house for me, here is a million dollars” it is the equivalent of saying here is ten million dollars. Justice Scalia suggests that those behind the Second Amendment engaged in a bit of folly. They really did not mean to write those extra words.
He tells us that that Amendment should read simply: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You would have to agree it was pretty stupid for our founders to spend all that time crafting unnecessary words. I always thought they were well educated people who knew what they were doing and said what they intended to say. I figured their final product was written with a purpose in mind and no surplusage words were used.
We have seen the results of his analysis, something I suppose those unnecessary words were intended to prevent. There are lots of folk walking around with military style weapons threatening our government officials, invading state capitals, attempting to kidnap a governor, and intimidating officials who only are doing their jobs. That is what happens when are willfully trying to please an anti-American organization like the NRA by rewriting the Bill of Rights Second Amendment.
A man at war with the Main Line Philadelphia elite (the Pews etc.) because they thought him a clod when he offered to loan them his collection of new French artists that he selected early in the 20th century in Paris and brought home, structured his will so that these snobs would not get near his paintings. These works that the “clod” brought home–Cezanne, Pizzaro, Manet, Monet etc.–were made available to the working people of his neighborhood, but not the elites. To show how little respect the creme-de la -creme had for this man’s dying wishes see “The Art of the Steal”. Lawers should be ashamed. Words mean nothing if they get in the way of the monied class.
Matt
No WD 40 …?
Use KY Jelly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i1rW-iW554
Waco: The Rules of Engagement –
wa-llahi! I knew you were the man with three names, but, I had to tickle you to make certain. Welcome back.
wa-llahi! Not carrying a gun is one of the luxuries of our society. I’ve lived in places where you have to carry a firearm to protect your life and goods. Lebanon and Guatemala are such places. You always have to worry. Let’s not let America become that kind of place.
1. There is no legal right under Lebanese law for anyone on Lebanese territory to bear arms. The government has wide latitude and discretion under the provisions of the Weapons and Ammunition Law to grant or refuse permits for the manufacturing, trading in, possession, and carrying of weapons and ammunition.
So, necessary, but not possible, at least not for law-abiding Lebanese.
2. Guatemala permits gun ownership, but with severe restrictions. The right to bear arms is recognized and regulated by article 38 of the current constitution, which was established in 1985.
“The right to own weapons for personal use, not prohibited by the law, in the place of in habitation, is recognized,” the document says. “There will not be an obligation to hand them over, except in cases ordered by a competent judge.”
So, here we have two countries you state are dangerous enough to require one to carry a firearm to protect your life and goods. Yet, one doesn’t allow ownership of guns, the other does. Seems the law has no effect on the crime.
wa-llahi! John, you are so right. The law means nothing in those countries. It’s just a bunch of words. You have to make, and, be, your own law in those locals. Impunity is the rule of the day. In Baalbak even the women carry pistols. The garbage dump outside Guatemala City functions as graveyard. The cops dump unidentified bullet ridden corpses in the trash, nightly. I’m happy things don’t work that way here.
“anti-American organization like the NRA ”
You are truly unhinged.
As far as “military style weapons” is concerned, those are exactly the weapons the 2nd Amendment addresses, and militia members, ordinary citizens, were REQUIRED to show up bearing, when called.
wa-llahi! John, are you another victim of gun porn? Recovery is possible; stop paging through Shotgun News, trim your palms, and, leave your gun alone, man.
Khalid, that’s all you got? You have to resort to mocking because you have no other cogent argument, I guess.
I’ve lived and trod in places where it’s prudent to carry a gun to protect one’s life, and they were all in the U.S.
Hi John.
Wow…..
One final example. The Bill of Rights of the United States has the following language in the 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.”
Matt
Don’t know about you but a can of WD 40 keeps thing
regulated for me.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2020/12/12/administrations-come-and-go-but-raytheon-is-forever/
DECEMBER 12, 2020 | GLENN DAIGON
ADMINISTRATIONS COME AND GO, BUT RAYTHEON IS FOREVER
https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/12/former-fbi-official-pleads-guilty-to-receiving-bribes-and-falsifying-tax-return/
FBI official pleads guilty to receiving bribes and falsifying tax return
December 14, 2020
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/sedmonds.html
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
A Review of the FBI’s Actions in
Connection With Allegations Raised
By Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds