As the conversation has evolved, we’ve tripped across a number of issues that need addressing. As anticipated, our readers have thought of things that I didn’t.
I have found myself devoting more and more energy considering language – specifically, how might we best lawyer-proof the wording of a given clause. The more I do so, the more I come to think that this is counterproductive. If we were all sitting in the New Constitutional Congress in Philadelphia, yes, that would be essential. But we aren’t, and I have not the faintest hope that this little exercise will ever find its way beyond the borders of S&Rville. So the purpose here, despite how I have formatted things, is to articulate broad principles, not necessarily to dedicate hours to phraseology.
I’m now thinking that the final form of the document should be less about nailed-down wording and more about a plain-language statement of concepts. For instance, instead of trying to figure out how to word Rho’s observations on a citizen’s right (or the lack thereof) to carry a next-generation man-portable laser weapon, why don’t we just say that this amendment includes future generations of man-portable energy/laser weapons?
What do our readers think?