#basic concepts

[22] This is the text and the gloss on yet another of the Wrath-hew:

Be Stronger against, Wind, Stab. If he sees, then take it down.

(Krakow/ “Goliath” version of Pseudo-Peter von Danzig’s Glossa, book from c.1510, text from before 1452)

[49] Yet one play

Mark when you stand in the high guard and he stabs low to you Then stab from above down between his sword and his forward hand and push the pommel to the ground and wind your point on his sword's blade through below his sword and attack him to his right side.

(illustration from Krakow/ “Goliath” version of Pseudo-Peter von Danzig’s Glossa, book from c.1510, text from before 1452 - actually text is from the 1452 Rome version of P-PvD, since Krakow is not transcribed on Wiktenauer for the armoured section)

Here we see two kinds of longsword fight. The immediate difference should be obvious. In the first, the fencers aren’t wearing armour. One isn’t wearing shoes, giving a great example to those of use who fence in toe shoes.

In the second, they’re in armour. Full harness, head to foot.

This necessitates a different kind of strategy. In the first image, the plan is simple - stab them in the face from as far away as possible. In the second, both fencers are holding their sword in the “half-sword”, “shortened sword” grip with the non-dominant hand on the blade.

This grip gives better control of the point and better leverage. You need these because in order to hurt an armoured opponent, you need to get the point into the gaps in his harness (inner thigh, armpits, inner elbow, visor etc.) and these are small targets.

To interpret the provisions of the Constitution, the following must be observed:

First, verba legis — whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except when technical terms are involved.

Second, when there is ambiguity ratio legis et anima — the intent of the framers as well as the history of times, conditions, and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed must be considered.

The three major parts of a constitution are the following:

Constitution of Sovereignty — This refers to the provisions pointing out the modes or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the Constitution may be made (Art. XVII [Amendments or Revisions]).

Constitution of Liberty — The series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the power of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. (Art. III [Bill of Rights]).

No. In the hierarchy of our laws, the Constitution is always supreme, and any law, issuance, or ordinance that is inconsistent with it is a nullity. Once a law or provision of law has been declared null for being contrary to the Constitution, a subsequent reincorporation or reenactment of the same provision in a new law will not cure its nullity. The only exception to this is when there are compelling circumstances to reverse the earlier conclusion.

(Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 03 Feb 1997)

No. The Constitution is not made up of neoclassical economics. It is the basic law. The principle of laissez faire has long been denied validity in this jurisdiction. Far from embracing the doctrine of laissez faire, the Constitution has enshrined a policy of protecting human rights and social justice, with a view toward rising productivity, full employment, and improving the quality of life of the people.