|
|
Back to UF - User Diary Index
|
Constitution Design 101, a learn-as-I-go effort. | by kelli217 | 2005-03-29 12:12:46 |
|
Part 1: The Preamble | by kelli217 | 2005-03-29 12:18:14 |
|
ideas | by MatthewDBA | 2005-03-29 13:04:57 |
|
responses | by kelli217 | 2005-03-29 15:00:39 |
| counter-responses |
by MatthewDBA |
2005-03-29 19:24:01 |
Okay, most of these make sense. But here are further thoughts, in order again.
1) While "driving home" a point is good, this can generally be done more concisely (and thus, often, more effectively) by appropriate word choice than by selection of synonyms. Unless you're attempting to hammer the point home, rather than drive it home :-)
2) It is difficult, as you imply, to be both specific and concise. My feeling is that if, as you state in (4) and (6), the preamble is primarily a statement of purpose, then it is more important that it be concise. It is important to establish the meaning of the phrase "rights of the people", but one could conceivably write books on the meaning of that phrase. How specific do you want to get in this section?
3) Good call. There are a few picky grammar points which could make it clearer (and tend to bug me because I have a great deal of the grammarian in me), but this is much easier to read and understand.
4) My point here, and in (7), was not that you should lay out a plan for creating stronger bonds, but to question whether this was in fact an appropriate goal of government *given that* you didn't lay out a plan. In other words, it's my opinion that making a broad statement like this without specifying anything about the nature of the bonds to be strengthened or the appropriate scope of governmental activity therefor, you're opening yourself up to exactly the questioning of "original intention" that you're trying (with general success) to avoid.
5) This sounds much more like the appropriate purpose of a judicial system.
6) Again, see my reply to your point (2). One could go on and on about what, precisely, the "rights of the people" comprise. Some sort of decision should be made about how long this exposition of rights should be. Perhaps it would be appropriate to enumerate those a bit more specifically after your declaration "In their purest essence, ..." Having gone through a brief resume of the more specific manifestations of these rights, you could make briefer the statement of reasons each "interest" (I might phrase it as a "duty") of government supports these rights.
7) Okay, I understand your point here. Again, I question whether fostering "understanding, acceptance, and tolerance", without specifying limits on how this might be implemented, is an appropriate function of government. Perhaps another approach is, as I suggested above, to simply state briefly, but clearly, how the fostering of such attitudes preserves the rights of the people.
I think that no matter how carefully you phrase it, there will always be a good bit of contention over the intent of the document, especially as it applies to the particulars of government. Again, I think you might do better to say something like:
Inalienable rights (life, liberty, property) imply specific rights of the people/duties of government (defense, mutual concern and acceptance of people, establishment of a system of formal justice). The government is to enforce the basic rights by providing the more specific needs, and if it does not, it strays from the true intent of government. A government which strays in this way, and which does not respond to the lawful petition of the people for change, should - indeed must - be altered for the people, so as to preserve these rights; for it is from the people that the authority of all the institutions of government emanate.
Okay, so I started off with a paraphrase and wound up in flights of rhetoric. But that's my idea. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I'm going to leave it for now, and move on... | by kelli217 | 2005-03-30 06:52:19 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
