From: Ross A. Finlayson (RAF@tomco.net)
Date: Tue Mar 23 1999 - 12:12:22 MST
There is no accepted glossary or dictionary reference for the Constitution, as
far as I know the interpretation of definitions is a combination of
interpretation of the "Framer's Intent" and common law court precedents. I
believe the Framers were quite logical, inclusive, and procedural in their works,
and the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Amendments are fine works.
I believe if the Author's of the Constitution and other revolutionary credos of
the day were here with us today, their paramount concern would be the freedom of
expression and privacy rights, considering that we as Americans have stumbled
though several centuries somewhat successfully maintaining Democracy, and the
longest running continuous Democracy.
Ross A. Finlayson
mark@unicorn.com wrote:
> Michael S. Lorrey [mike@lorrey.com] wrote:
> >The one weakness I feel the US Constitution has is that it lacks an
> >explicit glossary. There should be
> >a glossary of simple definitions that are hard to misunderstand.
>
> I don't see why anyone would need a glossary to understand the Constitution;
> it seems to have been written in simple terms that anyone could understand,
> so that any jury could easily tell whether a law was unconstitutional and
> acquit if it was. The problem is not the wording, it's that generations of
> lawyers have convinced people that it's a much more complicated document than
> it really is, and that phrases like 'shall not be infringed' don't really,
> actually mean that.
>
> Mark
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson 202/387-8208 http://www.tomco.net/~raf/ "C is the speed of light."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:22 MST