1163:The good Behaviour requirement-5

                                 (Added August 13, 2025)

Seems like all the other days posting below is not needed and at least some of it is wrong. Instead all what I needed to do for what I was arguing for is just to bring the attention to that in "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" "good Behaviour" directly applies to "their Offices" not "hold". In other words, one needs to focus on "their Offices during good Behaviour" as one thing. So even had "on" been used instead of "during" and we have at same time good and no good Behaviours this would lead to holding [their Offices on good Behaviour] and at the same time not holding [their Offices on no good Behaviour] which shows no conflict. The same can be said about replacing "during" with a participle, like for example: "doing". Even if we were having "Positions" instead of "Offices" that would still be valid just like how we recognize elsewhere things as subjects even though they just transfer the action.

Therefore whether what follow from a Behaviour would be supported or not supported by the judicial power of the United States would apply the same way regardless of what other Behaviours occur at same time with that Behaviour.

One may look at article 3 and wonder: What is this? Congress is only required to provide a supreme Court? And even this one can be of only one judge? Do or don't they want Congress to  establish a judiciary system? I think that the answer to all that is also in the good Behaviour requirement. In other words, this requirement applies to the judiciary starting from the outside level that is the responsibility of the Congress and that is at least one of the reasons why the clause was worded in the plural form, referring to "Offices", and with "during" rather than, for example, "on" or  anything involving referring to the judges. On the other hand "during" in the following line of the same paragraph has "their" following it in "during their Continuance in Office" even though within that context there seems to be less reason to take continuance in office as related to others than there is such reason for "good Behaviour" above. And while I just said above that all what I have written earlier is not needed, here we can see how taking the clause as order telling the how for the deed rather than being inclusive for the other way around completes this view by making the clause imply obligation rather than choice for Congress to do what good Behaviour require it to do for taking care of the judiciary. Although, as mentioned in my book, while a prepositional phrase starting the sentence is conditional (externally), a prepositional phrase existing at any point in or after the subject would be just like every thing there in the sentence in having the verb establishes beyond mere thought existence for it. Therefore seeing "during good Behaviour" as telling what should occur rather than what may occur is the only way to take it even if we consider "during" as just a preposition.   

   

                                  (Added August 11, 2025)

 It is better to start with saying that rather than thinking of "during good Behaviour" as directly telling the when, one should think of it as telling the how. The when follows depending on complying or not complying with the order or directive. Of course it would have been easier had the present participle been one not that much used for just its prepositional function. Because the prepositional functionality of "during" is secondary to its verbal role, this understanding is the only valid one. In other words, with regard to just the when issue the "doing" equivalent of "during good Behaviour" would be "doing good Behaviour" not " while/when doing good Behaviour"(This should not suggest that I take "...during good Behaviour" as if it were "...during their good Behaviour" ). So,  because "during" is a present participle the good Behaviour would have separate time accountability and therefore whether what follow from a Behaviour would be supported or not supported by the judicial power of the United States would apply the same way regardless of what other Behaviours occur at same time with that Behaviour.

                                  (Added August 9, 2025) 

Rather than the way the middle paragraph below went on, it probably would have been better to just explain the difference by saying that a present participle, an incapsulated verb, occurs in its own time dimension. So had it been for example "..hold their offices on good Behaviour" then  because "on" is just a preposition, we would have not been allowed/required to also take the good and the not good separately as described in the third paragraph below.    

                                        (First Posting)

 Although "during" may elsewhere be used just for conveying what "while" could have conveyed, here one should not miss how it can make holding the office relative to the task. Because a judge, like everybody else in everyday life, could be on good Behaviour with regard to something and not on good Behaviour with regard to something else at the same time.

The word "during", being a participle not a preposition in the first place, does not make direct association with time. So when it connects the doing of two things it associates doing one thing within the time brought to existence because of doing another thing, rather than having time being the original container as it is the case with "while". So unless the association is made directly with time (as done elsewhere in the writ bringing attention this issue), multiple contrary occurring of the former can happen at the same time if multiple occurring of the latter also happen during that time.

So, what follow from good Behaviour would be supported by the judicial Power of the United States and  what follow from not good Behaviour would be not supported by the judicial Power of the United States even if the two kind occur at same time or within a period of time to which one or the other gets attributed as when evaluating the whole performance of a judge with regard to satisfying this requirement.