Note: When reading a definition from an 1828 era dictionary, each word in each definition could reasonably be different than 2025 normal.
If a person read the definition for corporation first (from the top in the drawing) one of the definitions is about a people in government. If a person read the definition for "people" first, they word also have to look up the word "body". In 2025 we don't conflate "corporation" with "body". In 1825, they would not conflate "tissue" with "Kleenex" or "commander" with "presider"
The really large city of Philadelphia had 30 thousand people. Their philosophers would argue that was large enough to be a city-state, aka a nation. The people of Philadelphia wanted 10th amendment rights and 2nd amendments rights for themselves.
Who conflates "nation" with "city" today?
If this concept of conflation does not make sense, look at page 27 of the report.
The theory is that words changed meaning around the Revolutionary War and around the Civil War.
Real world experience with propaganda and human psychology that the physics of thought completely agrees with will soon allow
the direction and the amount of the word change to be proven in a court of law. When ...
When known facts are included in the reasoning. This is what the Methodology could bring. But ..
But, proof without backlash is much harder than beyond a reasonable doubt and may take an accordingly long time
The hypothetical sweet grandmother's deathbed wish will always create doubt even when it's based on a false precept
Legal rulings based on the confines of the law are inclusive of precedents even when those precedents are based on a false precept
When polls or votes are taken about what the second amendment means those votes are not binding on the understanding of the ratifiers
Alternative facts can meet the threshold for admission into the courtroom, but they are not the truth when based on false precepts
If the people want the amendment to change before its proven in a court of law, it will be possible to have a consistent implementation of the law.
And if they reject their neighbors having a say in their gun bearing rights, the legal skirmishes will continue like the Hatfields and McCoys. And the Supreme Court will need to decide if the next generation of personal protection overrides the rights of people allergic to the "nonlethal" hyper spray.
Consistency in the laws and process improvements could make the shadow docket obsolete if the people as a single body agree.
The definitions are merely the easiest to read checkpoints in the chain of causation needed for a Bayesian logic proof of the meaning. It is the consistency of the argument overall that changes it from admissible evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not lawyer, so we should put a pin in this one and ask if this is how Justice matters even its not with the confines of current law.