--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Back to my original comment. When I said that the Constitution > was meant to be interpreted, I mean that those who wrote it > obviously intended it to be interpreted. If they had really > wanted to pin the meanings down exactly, they could have done > so, in every multi-page amendment. It is SUPPOSED to consist > of reasonably short general statements.
Is it not equay reasonable to assume that they beleived they were providing a document that pined down the meaning clearly enough for any average person (it being a democracy and all) to understand and interpret appropriatly? I am asking, if it is not also a possibility that they believed they had presented the full spirit of what they intended and did not believe, that grandious obsfiscatio and axactness of terms was neccisary. If not, then why would people of such an opinion as you have sugested, begin a declaration with "We hold these truths to be self evident"? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
