The 14th Amendment's grammar.

[David_Simmons]

@Chronos

“On the Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline”, by Isaac Asimov, who was at the time it was written working on his own biochemistry PhD thesis. But I’m not seeing the resemblance. See, the thiotimoline piece makes sense.

I was reminded of the thiotimoline piece by Gfactor’s citation of the spoof papers by the MIT students and Sokol, not the nonsense about capitalizing or not capitalizing being crucial to the meaning of an amendment.

[Gary_Robson]

@.Tyr.

alphaboi867: As stated previously back when the constitution was written it was common practice to capitalize all nouns, not just proper nouns.

Of course, the common practice wasn’t followed very well. Glancing through the copy of the Constitution that Loopus linked to, I see several nouns that aren’t capitalized just on the first screenful of text (“defence” in the first sentence; “he” in Section 2, Clause 2; and “vacancies” in Clause 4).

[Roadfood]

@David Simmons

Right. Capitalization has no value as to the meaning of the word.

Except for the words polish and Polish, which differ only in capitalization and have completely different meanings.

(I know, OT, but I couldn’t help it…)

[Gfactor]

In Article I, Section 2, the drafters used the word “chuse.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/transcript.html Maybe that is significant somehow too.

[David_Simmons]

@Roadfood

Except for the words polish and Polish, which differ only in capitalization and have completely different meanings.

(I know, OT, but I couldn’t help it…)

Bingo.

I suppose though, context would make clear which is intended even if the capital is missing.

Is isn’t necessary to resort to capitals to have that situation. You cannot tell what the definition of “bow” or “saw” or “sight” or “sound” or “case” or even that all purpose word “dog” is without further information. And what’s more you don’t know how to pronounce “bow” without context to help out.

[dtilque]

The practice of capitalizing all the nouns lasted about a century or so in English. It was on its way out about the time the Constitution was written. And, of course, not every writer of that era rigorously adhered to it. The practice of capitalizing nouns is unrelated to the fact that English and German are related languages. They diverged well before significant writing had happened in either language.

Words that change pronunciation when capitalized are known as capitonyms. Those interested can google on that word so there’s no need to clutter this thread with other examples.

[Northern_Piper]

stpauler, you’ve run into a “sovereign citizen”. This is a nut-job group that denies that laws apply to them, because each citizen is sovereign. One of the ways they try to “prove” this thesis is contorted interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The Freemen of Monata, Posse comitatus and redemptionists all share aspects of the “sovereign citizen” ideology.

Short answer: the courts have consistently rejected these arguments.

It’s late so I don’t have time to hunt down any links for you, but if you google “sovereign citizen” you’ll likely find some stuff. You could also check the Anti-Defamation League website, and the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s website - they have info there.

[Gfactor]

@Northern Piper

It’s late so I don’t have time to hunt down any links for you, but if you google “sovereign citizen” you’ll likely find some stuff. You could also check the Anti-Defamation League website, and the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s website - they have info there.

Here are a couple of good ones:

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/SCM.asp?xpicked=4&item=20
http://www.anti-government.com/challenging-personal-jurisdiction.htm

[Gfactor]

4. Why do they say such strange things?

The main reason that sovereign citizens sound so strange is that their ideology has convinced them that our current government is an illegitimate government which replaced the valid one. In order to prove this, as well as their other strange legal and historical theories, they tend to search through old law books, old statute books, law dictionaries, legal codes, and other documents in order to find proof. Consequently, they will often cite strange terms such as “allodial title,” “refusal for cause without dishonor” and “admiralty jurisdiction.” Making it even worse is that their use of such terms will often involve a drastic change in definition or in the accepted use of such terms. Thus sovereign citizens might quote from the “Uniform Commercial Code,” a set of state laws established to regulate the way commercial transactions are made, in a criminal case that has no connection whatsoever to the Uniform Commercial Code.

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students.asp#1.%20%20What%20is%20a%20"sovereign%20citizen"?

From the site: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/default.asp

[David_Simmons]

@Gfactor

4. Why do they say such strange things?

The main reason that sovereign citizens sound so strange is that their ideology has convinced them that our current government is an illegitimate government which replaced the valid one. In order to prove this, as well as their other strange legal and historical theories, they tend to search through old law books, old statute books, law dictionaries, legal codes, and other documents in order to find proof. Consequently, they will often cite strange terms such as “allodial title,” “refusal for cause without dishonor” and “admiralty jurisdiction.” Making it even worse is that their use of such terms will often involve a drastic change in definition or in the accepted use of such terms. Thus sovereign citizens might quote from the “Uniform Commercial Code,” a set of state laws established to regulate the way commercial transactions are made, in a criminal case that has no connection whatsoever to the Uniform Commercial Code.

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students.asp#1.%20%20What%20is%20a%20"sovereign%20citizen"?

From the site: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/default.asp

I once heard a woman say that we didn’t have to pay income taxes because paper money is illegal. She explained that the Constitution bans the use as money of anything but gold and silver. When I pointed out that that restriction in the Constitution only barred states from creating their own paper money I was told that I was a poor fool and a dupe of the illegal federal government.

[Gfactor]

Obviously someone who would make such an argument doesn’t know that states in *that *clause refers to the federal government.

Or maybe you are part of the conspiracy. :eek: