Martin Schulze wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the >> > non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on >> > how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part >> > of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made >> > available to voters. > > Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough > so that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the > author has intended its interpretation?
Because it's often impossible to be as clear as you want to be, and you want to future-proof against your own mistakes? (That said, I think most of the preambles for the proposed GRs here make things *less* clear rather than more. The preamble to the GPL, on the other hand, is an excellent example of a legal preamble: by stating a clear intent, it means that if someone thinks they've found a convoluted "loophole" in the GPL text, they can probably be shot down.) > As Manoj pointed out > already, courts look at the resolution when *interpreting* it, > not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard. Not really true, as noted: they look at the main text first, but if there's an ambiguity, they will look at the preamble. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]