4 ms·

Is that a valid analogy? The US Constitution tries not to be vague, and is extremely clear about its aims. Being updatable is not the same as having a generic

Is that a valid analogy? The US Constitution tries not to be vague, and is extremely clear about its aims. Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. And the Constitution comes with an infrastructure that is constantly trying to clarify what it means when applied, not a perfect infrastructure for sure, but at least judges and the Supremes understand that their issue is to clarify interpretation and not simply make judgements about individuals on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall, because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. The CoC that has caused so much drama in other projects needs this kind of "don't worry it won't be abused" disclaimers, largely because the authors didn't actually try to pin themselves down (they didn't want to). It has deliberately vague clauses and the classic "... and anything else inappropriate" tacked on the end, which renders the document meaningless. In addition it is routinely used to attack certain groups but not others. These problems could have been avoided by better drafting, but one suspects it would then not have met the goals of the drafters.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The US Constitution tries not to be vague No, it doesn't. I mean, it tries not to be vague on the points on which a very specific decision was reached, but it equally is deliberately vague on other points. > Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. On the other hand, it does, for instance, have the Elastic Clause. > In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall Yes, they regularly do (with “persons of African descent” as the most frequent group so identified, though “voting citizens of states with a lesser propensity to disenfranchise other residents of the same state” is another sometimes raised), especially for the original text (though even the current text is argued to have only incompletely eradicated that design.) > because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. No, especially in the case of the original text, it's pretty clear proof that the statement is true.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Thanks, I hadn't heard of the elastic clause before. I was only referring to the latest version of the text. I know it was racist in the past. But I am not a constitutional scholar, indeed.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The US Constitution tries not to be vague No, it doesn't. I mean, it tries not to be vague on the points on which a very specific decision was reached, but it equally is deliberately vague on other points. > Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. On the other hand, it does, for instance, have the Elastic Clause. > In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall Yes, they regularly do (with “persons of African descent” as the most frequent group so identified, though “voting citizens of states with a lesser propensity to disenfranchise other residents of the same state” is another sometimes raised), especially for the original text (though even the current text is argued to have only incompletely eradicated that design.) > because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. No, especially in the case of the original text, it's pretty clear proof that the statement is true.

repolfx 8y ago
Thanks, I hadn't heard of the elastic clause before. I was only referring to the latest version of the text. I know it was racist in the past. But I am not a constitutional scholar, indeed.