3 ms·

Money vs speech is a good example, I think, of people not agreeing that these things are important or not. And that the "Constitution" part is not the important

Money vs speech is a good example, I think, of people not agreeing that these things are important or not. And that the "Constitution" part is not the important part. How would you get a Constitution to separate money when there are so many well-funded pushes for exactly the opposite, resulting in the situation where the courts say money needs to be protected? Before you can do that you need to get everyone on board with the dangers of money in politics, and then if you can do that, you've solved the problem because now your judges won't interpret "protection of speech" as "protection of buying political influence." You gotta win the debate either way.

JellyBeanThief 3y ago
> How would you get a Constitution to separate money Not that I put a lot of effort into this formulation, but how about something like > A well-informed and reasonable public, being necessary to the security of a working democracy, the right of the people to free and quick access to public information must not be abridged, but protected. And then back that up with a multi-layer prescriptive dictionary to minimize judicial reinterpretation. The terms "right of the people", "free and quick access", "public information" would defined in layer N, while the terms "right", "people", "free", "quick", "access", "public", and "information" would be defined in some layers N - M. We've had some centuries now to get better at technical writing, language engineering, and lexicography, to say nothing of IT. We should use them.