A lot of these comments are primarily about style, but style has a great impact on the presentation of substance. There are a few things that I feel could be made clearer by changing the style. In particular:
- Why "apparent and evident"? Surely that's a redundancy?
- This is partly a style issue, and partly a substantive issue. The first few sentences are fairly choppy. In particular, I'm thinking about "These are the rights of the people". Isn't that covered under "all people ... are endowed with certain rights"? It may be more to the point to simply say something to the effect of "Since the government, the guarantor of the people's rights, is instituted by the informed and willing consent of the governed, we the people grant willingly to the government these powers, and only these:" (Or something like that.)
- The last two sentences in the first paragraph are very long. They might be more easily comprehensible if split into a couple of others. (It took me a couple of readings to see that they were, in fact, two sentences. But maybe that's just me.
- "Creating stronger bonds..." is good; but what sorts of measures will the government be allowed to take to create stronger bonds between its citizens?
- "Establishing a fair ... system of justice" seems to be merely a particular application of "safeguarding of the rights of the people". Again, is this redundant?
- The same goes for "defense of the people from ... threats to the rights of the people".
- The third list item, "Encouraging understanding, acceptance, and tolerance among the various people", seems very similar to "Creating stronger bonds between ... the people". And is this really an area in which government should be concerned (i.e., should the government be trying to foster tolerance among people, or should it limit itself to ensuring that people are treated equally before the law?) How does one decide what constitutes "acceptance" and "tolerance"?
In general, I think you have a commendable intent. I think, however, that in your preamble you go into too much detail about the limitations of government to constitute a summary (which a preamble should, ideally, include), but not enough detail to solidify your aims. Here, conciseness is vital.
A final suggestion: The second paragraph has much in common with the final sentence of the first. Were I you, I might consider removing that final sentence from the first paragraph and appending it to the second, making any stylistic changes you feel necessary.
Good stuff. Keep it coming.
Matt |
