shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren N. Shadwick) (02/24/84)
* In response to the articles on the net regarding an new "clear language" amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I would like to offer the following comments: 1. Due process (which is already safeguarded by the Constitution) generally has two subcategories: Procedural due process and Substantive due process. One of the major tenents under the Common Law is a test under substantive due process that any law to be valid must be under-standable by one of average intelligence. If one is wronged by the law for not understanding it then intent is very difficult to prove and any right thinking jury hearing the case should vote not guilty. Several statutes in the history of the United states have been overturned by the courts for failure of substantive due process, generally under the term of vagueness. 2. Laws need not be overly long or needlessly couched in legal language to avoid vagueness. A prime example of this is the Constitution itself which has stood the test of over 200 years with little alteration. The choice of wording in the Constitution is very careful and complete. During the convention many phrases were debated for long hours for the specific purpose of clear, concise, unobscured language. The purpose of overly wordy and couched language in my opinion is to deliberately confuse, intimidate, and obscure the real purpose of the author. Warren N. Shadwick Teltone Corporation