Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Polk]

We're in a weird place when we have to cite the definition of a simple word like people, but the trick is, I'm the ones who are "twisting" words while you're the ones who says this plural refers to individuals in spites of the lawses of Englishes These are just hard lessons that we have to learn for myselves.

You ARE in a weird place if you think that the right recognized and secured from government injury in the 2nd Amendment is in any manner dependent upon the words of the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

This is what is so ludicrous about you leftists and your defining of the words of the 2nd Amendment . . . Your "state's right" / "militia right" / "collective right" position is entirely dependent upon the purposeful ignoring /dismissing of the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights and 130+ years of SCOTUS proving you wrong.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . ”
​

The right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or any particualr definition of terms used in the Amendment.

See, unlike the power to organize, train, drill and deploy citizens as militia, the right to keep and bear arms IN NO MANNER DEPENDS on the Constitution to exist.

The right exists and is possessed by "the people" because "We the People", when establishing the powers of the federal government, never granted a shred of power to the federal government to allow it to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

Why do you persist in presenting/ perpetuating these defunct and corrupt theories that stand in such clear opposition to the foundational principles and legal action of the Constitution?

Is the leftist, statist, authoritarian anti-constitution agenda really that alluring to you?

-----


* The "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" cited in this case (Cruikshank) was that of self defense, exercised by two Freedmen (former slaves but in 1873, US citizens) against the KKK. They of course were not militia members and the time of the Colfax Massacre, Louisiana had no official state militia, it having been disbanded by Congress.

Wow. I hope your personal right to English lessons is not infringed, because you're gonna need them to have any clue what we're talking about here. Perhaps you can squeeze them in between these leftist and statist Doctor Doom comic books.

We're talking about the use of English and a dependent clause therein. Not a law or a right "depending" on something.

A dependent (subordinate) clause is one that is set up by, and depends on, another clause. "If I type this sentence, it appears". The verb "appears" depends on "if I type this sentence"; if I do not type this sentence, it does not appear.

Back to the 2A
"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 main action is:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

-- but it is dependent on the previous phrase that sets it up:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

This is the basis for what follows; "Since" or "because" a well regulated militia is necessary etc, the right follows. If the security of a free state does not require a well regulated militia, then the right has no basis and does not follow. Ergo the action (the right) is a dependent (subordinate) clause; it depends on what precedes. If what precedes doesn't facilitate it, then it doesn't exist. And that facilitation, in this case, refers to a "well regulated militia". Which is by definition a collective, not an individual.

That's what we're talking about. Welcome to our language. Where SCOTUS is irrelevant.

And by the way the legal right absolutely exists as a result of being codified in the Second Amendment. That's why we have a Constitution -- to declare and spell these things out. If it were not, shall we say, dependent on that..... we wouldn't need a Constitution.

The problem is that the first part of the sentence isn't a subordinate clause, or at least not in the way you're familiar with using them in 21st century American English.

 

[daveman]

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman
(reprinted with permission, see below)

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of “American Usage and Style: The Consensus.”

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Copperud's fulla crap. Pogo says so.

Right, Pogo?

 

[daveman]

If that were true, half of the language in the amendment is meaningless and the Congressional debates during the ratification process make no sense.

And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.

Because part of the current membership of the Court don't know how to read the Constitution. Their 14th Amendment jurisprudence is equally askew.

Speaking of petulant foot-stamping...

 

[Pogo]

I don't parrot; progressives have the exclusive franchise to that mindless activity. In my post immediately before the one you quoted, I acknowledged FA's assertion.

As far as your asinine interpretation, SCOTUS agrees with me.

So you lose.

SCOTUS... SCOTUS... ah yes, the infallible entity that enlightened us on how Dred Scott was three-fifths of a person while a corporation is five-fifths. Makes one wonder how many fifths they were drinking.

Do you really believe it was the same court who decided "Dred Scott was three-fifths of a person while a corporation is five-fifths"?

Wow. Just...wow.

Whether SCOTUS agrees with you or not, simple rules of English do not, and they're way older. And that was the question.. So you lose.

Really? So SCOTUS is illiterate?

Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?

SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.

 

[daveman]

SCOTUS... SCOTUS... ah yes, the infallible entity that enlightened us on how Dred Scott was three-fifths of a person while a corporation is five-fifths. Makes one wonder how many fifths they were drinking.

Do you really believe it was the same court who decided "Dred Scott was three-fifths of a person while a corporation is five-fifths"?

Wow. Just...wow.

Whether SCOTUS agrees with you or not, simple rules of English do not, and they're way older. And that was the question.. So you lose.

Really? So SCOTUS is illiterate?

Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?

SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.

...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.

 

[Polk]

And yet, despite your petulant foot-stamping, the 2nd is an individual right.

Because part of the current membership of the Court don't know how to read the Constitution. Their 14th Amendment jurisprudence is equally askew.

Speaking of petulant foot-stamping...

Nothing petulant about it. The right flank of the Court determines what their preferred outcome is, and then works backwards from there to develop a legal rationale.

 

[daveman]

Because part of the current membership of the Court don't know how to read the Constitution. Their 14th Amendment jurisprudence is equally askew.

Speaking of petulant foot-stamping...

Nothing petulant about it. The right flank of the Court determines what their preferred outcome is, and then works backwards from there to develop a legal rationale.

Sure, if that reinforces your fantasy that you're smarter than them.

 

[Pogo]

Do you really believe it was the same court who decided "Dred Scott was three-fifths of a person while a corporation is five-fifths"?

Wow. Just...wow.

Really? So SCOTUS is illiterate?

Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?

SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.

...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.

We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.

 

[Pogo]

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman
(reprinted with permission, see below)

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of “American Usage and Style: The Consensus.”

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Copperud's fulla crap. Pogo says so.

Right, Pogo?

I wouldn't presume to say that without having taken the time to read what he allegedly said. I say "allegedly" because the poster just pasted a wall of words with no link, and for all I know made the whole thing up.

Also I wasn't sure I had time to navigate all that, since I do have an appointment in October. But I took the time to dump it into a word doc where it could be read.

For the most part I agree with the phantom professor His logic is sound. I disagree on one glaring area which I shall list in bold below:

>> [Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

Obviously such condition IS at the very least implied. If that's not what the "well regulated Militia" clause is there for, then that clause has no function at all. This is one reason I question the veracity of this undocumented interview.

The second caveat I would add is that, according to the post itself, what they're analyzing as spelled out in the beginning, is the original wording (with the comma after "Militia"), which as I noted in my first post here, carries a whole different meaning from the version without the comma. But since the latter (sans comma) is what was ratified and in the Constitution today, it's kind of a head scratchier why the phantom article would choose to break down the first draft rather than the present letter of the law.

Unless that was inconvenient too...

 

[daveman]

Maybe as illiterate as "corporations are people, my friend".
But what committee isn't?

SCOTUS is irrelevant anyway. This discussion was never about SCOTUS.

...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.

We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.

You're not as qualified as this guy.

Can't wait to hear you claim he's dumb, too.

 

[daveman]

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman
(reprinted with permission, see below)

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of “American Usage and Style: The Consensus.”

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Copperud's fulla crap. Pogo says so.

Right, Pogo?

I wouldn't presume to say that without having taken the time to read what he allegedly said. I say "allegedly" because the poster just pasted a wall of words with no link, and for all I know made the whole thing up.

Also I wasn't sure I had time to navigate all that, since I do have an appointment in October. But I took the time to dump it into a word doc where it could be read.

For the most part I agree with the phantom professor His logic is sound. I disagree on one glaring area which I shall list in bold below:

>> [Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

Obviously such condition IS at the very least implied. If that's not what the "well regulated Militia" clause is there for, then that clause has no function at all. This is one reason I question the veracity of this undocumented interview.

The second caveat I would add is that, according to the post itself, what they're analyzing as spelled out in the beginning, is the original wording (with the comma after "Militia"), which as I noted in my first post here, carries a whole different meaning from the version without the comma. But since the latter (sans comma) is what was ratified and in the Constitution today, it's kind of a head scratchier why the phantom article would choose to break down the first draft rather than the present letter of the law.

Unless that was inconvenient too...

How often has Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary consulted you as an expert? Are you on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary?

None? And no?

Well, then.

 

[Pogo]

...says the guy pissed off because he thinks he's smarter than SCOTUS.

We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.

You're not as qualified as this guy.

Can't wait to hear you claim he's dumb, too.

Uh-- I haven't called anybody "dumb". That's not even a word I commonly use.

But seeing as how your link just goes right back to the same post I just responded to, maybe I should...

 

[daveman]

We ain't talking about SCOTUS. We never were. I know that must be inconvenient to red herringmongers but they're irrelevant. SCOTUS is to decide what the law means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't tussle with that. What we're actually talking about HERE is how English works, and on that I'm well qualified, certainly more than SCOTUS, thank you very much.

You're not as qualified as this guy.

Can't wait to hear you claim he's dumb, too.

Uh-- I haven't called anybody "dumb". That's not even a word I commonly use.

But seeing as how your link just goes right back to the same post I just responded to, maybe I should...

Sorry. I didn't see your lame reply to the post when I posted that. I figured you were ignoring it.

 

[oldfart]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd 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."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.​

Progressives lie. All the time.

In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!

BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.

 

[Pogo]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd 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."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.​

Progressives lie. All the time.

In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE. That's what these kinds of books do, just like Cliff's Notes. Sheesh. Get a grip!

BTW, I would agree that it is a pretty bad cheat sheet anyway. A lot of provisions of other amendments are incomplete also.

Ha. Good catch. OP busted all over again.

Even if it were a textbook, as noted before nothing in the world would prevent any student from challenging what's in the book. These knee jerks act like a textbook is some kind of etch-a-sketch on the brain indelible for all time. Not sure that doesn't say even more about authoritarian mind controllism than about their shaky powers of deduction.

 

[OKTexas]

The right wingers need to read what the 1st amendment says in that book, memorize it, and follow it.

Sorry, I don't memorize communist lies. That is not what the first amendment says.

 

[Abatis]

We're talking about the use of English and a dependent clause therein. Not a law or a right "depending" on something.

And you are completely wrong; that is exactly what the discussion is about.

The 2nd doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

A dependent (subordinate) clause is one that is set up by, and depends on, another clause. "If I type this sentence, it appears". The verb "appears" depends on "if I type this sentence"; if I do not type this sentence, it does not appear.

LOL

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.​

Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work?
Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "deautoed" because they do not work?
Can the people only drive on a governmentally maintained road system?
Can they only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"

Oh the endless hydras that spring into being when we conjure dependencies . . .

LOL

Back to the 2A
"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 main action is:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

-- but it is dependent on the previous phrase that sets it up:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

Legally, the declaratory clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", is just an inactive statement of principle. It doesn't create anything, it doesn't demand anything, it doesn't establish anything new or modify militia powers already conferred in Article I, § 8, cl. 16.

To your useless argument, the declaratory clause is not a complete thought, it is an absolute phrase and as such it is devoid of direct controlling influence. The 2nd Amendment's intent, meaning and governmentally restrictive action survives the absolute phrase being removed as it is not at all essential to the sentence's structure. The restrictive clause is a logically, semantically, linguistically and grammatically correct sentence without the declaratory clause.

And there are more fails too. Legally, the declaratory clause has never been inspected to inform or held to instruct on any aspect of militia powers, federal or state.

Logically (and legally) it fails because those in the militia never needed a guaranteed "right" in order to be armed. The militia powers of the federal government and states established the full and complete conditions and standards of the militia's arms and how they would/could be kept and borne in service.

When serving in the militia, citizens were subordinate and under the government's control and direction . . . and under military law. "Rights" in and of themselves were not an issue or a governing principle.

And just to throw it out there, the restrictive clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is independent, it does command, it does control . . .

This is the basis for what follows; "Since" or "because" a well regulated militia is necessary etc, the right follows.

The declaratory clause can be said to tell us a political reason why this right that pre-exists the Constitution is being recognized and secured. You might also argue correctly that it tells us why the 2nd Amendment exists but that does not mean that it is a modifier of the right to arms because the right does not emanate from the 2nd Amendment (it being a retained right with no aspect of it surrendered to the control of government).

In the final analysis, you are spouting legally incoherent gibberish.

If the security of a free state does not require a well regulated militia, then the right has no basis and does not follow. Ergo the action (the right) is a dependent (subordinate) clause; it depends on what precedes. If what precedes doesn't facilitate it, then it doesn't exist. And that facilitation, in this case, refers to a "well regulated militia". Which is by definition a collective, not an individual.

Statist garbage with no support in the philosophical foundation or legal implementation or interpretation of the Constitution . . .

That's what we're talking about. Welcome to our language. Where SCOTUS is irrelevant.

That's just precious . . . and it explains completely and without any ambiguity just how much respect we should give your rather amusing theories (in a what a poor deluded goofball kinda way).

And by the way the legal right absolutely exists as a result of being codified in the Second Amendment. That's why we have a Constitution -- to declare and spell these things out. If it were not, shall we say, dependent on that..... we wouldn't need a Constitution.

Only within the Byzantine castles you have erected in your own mind.

What does the 9th Amendment mean in your bassackwards world?

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because part of the current membership of the Court don't know how to read the Constitution. Their 14th Amendment jurisprudence is equally askew.

Speaking of petulant foot-stamping...

Nothing petulant about it. The right flank of the Court determines what their preferred outcome is, and then works backwards from there to develop a legal rationale.

A claim you know you cannot support, especially in regard to 2A jurisprudence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In case all of you outraged illiterates didn't notice, THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. It is a review course (cheat sheet) for an AP exam. The goal is not to teach, but to pass the exam. IT'S CONDENSED PEOPLE.

It's also WRONG, by every relevant unit of measure.

Who gives a test that -requires- incorrect answers?

 

[Pogo]

The problem is that the first part of the sentence isn't a subordinate clause, or at least not in the way you're familiar with using them in 21st century American English.

NSS . . .

You need to be applying less 21st Century American English and think Latin.

The declaratory clause, (your, "first part of the sentence"), as an ablative absolute is grammatically separate from the restrictive clause (uhhhh, the second part of the sentence) and has zero influence on it.

If it has no function, then why the fuck would they take the trouble to put it in there? And not only that but let it survive and even clarify it through a revision?

Definition of ABLATIVE

: of, relating to, or constituting a grammatical case expressing typically the relations of separation and source and also frequently such relations as cause or instrument (M-W)



Wait, you know what-- let's see if we can find a pattern of ablative or subordinate clauses...

1A -- does not say "an open exchange of ideas being necessary to the healthy exercise of a free republic, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

3A doesn't say "The right of the People to be secure in their homes, no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered..."

4A fails to qualify the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects etc (remember that one? I barely do) with "a good stash being necessary to a good home" ...

Not to belabor the point, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X, none of them are qualified. Only II. And it was definitely in there for a reason, since it survived the edit which removed the comma and the Germanic noun capitalization, so obviously its presence is conscious and intentional. But such qualification exists only in 2A, none of the others.

Why do you think that is? Discuss.