+18

Continuing from the preceding post

The different issues mentioned in amendment one suggests that the the focus there was on congres and that imply that all the talking of all the amendments that is related only to congress is contained there. Otherwise, the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" would probably better fit amendment 7 or 5. If it is an issue that it would need to be stated in an affirmative way, we already have the beginning of amendment 6 and 7 stated that way (and this is unlike how the constitution separated the parts related to the yes and no and had each yes part preceded by "To") .

They mean the amendments just on the federal government and say things like "In all criminal prosecutions"? 

The look of the amendments, after the first, in being about the end result seems like coming from a totally different world than the look of dividing power or who can and cannot do what that comes from Section 8, 9 and 10 of the constitution.

Lets take another look at the first amendment and try to answer this: What is the end purpose of it? 

If the end purpose is to prevent the effect of those actions on people then it needed to talk about just the end result of those actions like the rest of the amendments or, if that intention is limited to only actions coming from the federal/general government, to point at the whole government. 

On the other hand, if the end purpose is to express limitations on the legislative power of congress then we ask : Is that end purpose shared with the rest of the amendments? If the answer is no then the that mentioning of congress should not limit the application domain of the rest. If the answer is yes then, aside from other things, and this is a very direct point, how would it apply on the third amendment? The third amendment targets only the executive authority because it only requires "a manner to be prescribed by law". It speaks about the need of a law regarding the matter, any law, how would that be a restriction on congress?