A disingenuous argument. The one man is the author of the clause - the one person who should be considered most authoritative on it's meaning and use. As far as the rest of it goes, insisting that there is nothing there concerning it's purpose and intent is your opinion, which I find to be little more than an exercise in willful ignorance.
Is there something there to illustrate "it's purpose and intent"? Care to highlight what you think is relevant?