The next Constitution needs a glossary:
militia means this ...
arms means this ...
press means this ...
general welfare means this ...
natural born citizen means this ...
>
The next Constitution needs a glossary:
militia means this ...
arms means this ...
press means this ...
general welfare means this ...
natural born citizen means this ...
>
So that it can be perverted and changed as the English language is want?
As govt cannot fathom ‘shall, may, no, not, and’ (”Congress shall make NO Law”, “shall NOT be infringed”), I have yet to see *anything* made clearer with MORE ‘legalese’ added.
IMO, *every* Law/judgement should be mandated to include excerpts from the Federalist papers\Constitution. If it cannot be laid at the feet of its conceptual authority, they have no standing to even be talking about the subject to begin.
They then have less opportunity to ‘bake-in’ the generalities that allow the judicial-turnstyle of jurisprudence (bill > lawyers > judge > judgment > rinse/repeat).
We *HAD* a concept of ‘Void for Vagueness’....another one of those pesky little things the corrupt system has brushed under the rug (much like jury nullification).
My understanding is that the Federalist papers were meant to be just that: an explanation of the term's meanings and intent of the Constitution. I'm pretty sure that the Federalist Papers were written to clarify the Constitution for New York, to help them decide whether to ratify or not.
But, you're right. Even though the libs would squabble over the meaning of the language in the glossary, it would help to have a glossary.