Re: POL: Extropianism and Politics

Ross A. Finlayson (
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:12:22 -0500

There is no accepted glossary or dictionary reference for the Constitution, as far as I know the interpretation of definitions is a combination of interpretation of the "Framer's Intent" and common law court precedents. I believe the Framers were quite logical, inclusive, and procedural in their works, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Amendments are fine works.

I believe if the Author's of the Constitution and other revolutionary credos of the day were here with us today, their paramount concern would be the freedom of expression and privacy rights, considering that we as Americans have stumbled though several centuries somewhat successfully maintaining Democracy, and the longest running continuous Democracy.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> Michael S. Lorrey [] wrote:
> >The one weakness I feel the US Constitution has is that it lacks an
> >explicit glossary. There should be
> >a glossary of simple definitions that are hard to misunderstand.
> I don't see why anyone would need a glossary to understand the Constitution;
> it seems to have been written in simple terms that anyone could understand,
> so that any jury could easily tell whether a law was unconstitutional and
> acquit if it was. The problem is not the wording, it's that generations of
> lawyers have convinced people that it's a much more complicated document than
> it really is, and that phrases like 'shall not be infringed' don't really,
> actually mean that.
> Mark

Ross Andrew Finlayson
"C is the speed of light."