amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (02/03/84)
I have an idea for a constitutional amendment that would,in my view
anyway,resolve many of the current political problems facing the U.S.
today. Especially in the 18 months preceeding every election. For
what it's worth,here it is:
It shall be illegal for ANY POLITICIAN to hold public office within
the borders of the United States of America.
Somehow I doubt if it will ever be seriously considered, let alone
passed by both houses and signed into law by the President (no matter
who is in office at the time). But if it were, maybe we,the people of
the U.S., could get a truly representitive form of government instead
of the current form of government of, by, and for Special Interest
Groups. What do you think,does this idea have any merit?
Send replies to IHNP4!IHUXJ!AMRA or POST to the NEWSGROUP.
PEACE & BEST WISHES
From the ever curious mind of:
Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihuxj!amra)neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (02/07/84)
************************************************************************** > It shall be illegal for ANY POLITICIAN to hold public office within > the borders of the United States of America. Aw, come on, Carter and Reagan both got themselves elected by claiming not to be politicians--Let's give the politicians another chance. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/07/84)
#R:ihuxj:-39000:uiucdcs:29200083:000:1213 uiucdcs!renner Feb 6 21:46:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / ihuxj!amra / 1:27 am Feb 3, 1984 */ > It shall be illegal for ANY POLITICIAN to hold public office within > the borders of the United States of America. This idea can't be seriously considered until Steve tells us what he means by the term "politician." But while we're waiting for him to come up with a definition suitable for the United States Constitution, why not think over the following two amendments: 1. No LAWYER shall hold any public office of any State or of the United States. "Lawyer" means "any person ever licensed to practice law anywhere within the borders of the United States. 2. Heinlein's "Semantic Amendment", also known as the "Plain English Amendment." It specifies that any law or regulation of the federal government may be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it is too complicated to understand. The testing and sampling technique is specified in the amendment. Lawyers, judges, law professors, etc. are to be excluded from the sample. Wouldn't YOU like to challenge the U.S. Tax Code on the grounds that nobody can understand it? I sure would... Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/07/84)
Scott Renner advocates the following Constitutional amendment: >> 2. Heinlein's "Semantic Amendment", also known as the >> "Plain English Amendment." It specifies that any law or >> regulation of the federal government may be ruled >> unconstitutional on the grounds that it is too complicated >> to understand. The testing and sampling technique is >> specified in the amendment. Lawyers, judges, law >> professors, etc. are to be excluded from the sample. Lawyers, etc., use an understandable language; that is, understandable to them. They use a professional language in just the same way we do. We know what we are talking about, even if the average layperson does not. My wife, an intelligent but technically untrained woman, saw the word "byte" written recently, and was not sure how it should be pronounced (she knows what a byte is, she just didn't know how it was spelled). Should we then be forced to say "seven or eight (depending on the system) binary digits" instead of "byte"? That is what the "plain english" advocates are insisting that the lawyers must do. All you would ensure is that the tax code (Scott's example) would be even longer than it is already. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (02/07/84)
-- >>> 2. Heinlein's "Semantic Amendment", also known as the "Plain English >>> Amendment." It specifies that any law or regulation of the federal >>> government may be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it is too >>> complicated to understand. The testing and sampling technique is >>> specified in the amendment. Lawyers, judges, law professors, etc. are >>> to be excluded from the sample. >>> Wouldn't YOU like to challenge the U.S. Tax Code on the grounds that >>> nobody can understand it? I sure would... >>> Scott Renner >>> {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner No, No!!! You silly person! The LAST thing we need is a "Plain English" amendment. What we really need is a public education system that can turn out even marginally literate citizens--folks who can read and write well enough to see that so-called bureaucratese is by its very nature semantically meaningless, but that so-called legalese is merely ugly. If you are literate, you can read and understand the Tax Code--in fact, you can even figure out exactly what fine points of distinction are being made in its sundrie high- falutin' phrases. Now, the Tax Code may be unwieldy, unfair, or even ambiguous, but it is perfectly understandable. To a literate person, anyway, and certainly to any judge. Sure, "Plain English" is a political plum. A sure safe issue. After all, who's for obfuscation? Landlords, bankers, and lawyers, that's who--and nobody likes the likes of them. But it's a ludicrous solution to the growing cancer of American illiteracy. To quote Richard Mitchell ("Less Than Words Can Say"): "It's as though you went to the hospital with a broken arm and the people in the emergency room, instead of setting the thing, got busy on the telephone trying to find you some other line of work, something that requires only one arm." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 07 Feb 84 [18 Pluviose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/08/84)
Legalese may be ugly, but it is necessary. The book Ken Perlow
makes reference to ("Less Than Words Can Say") gives an example of
an OSHA regulation, written in high legalese, defining what an exit
is. Now, if someone goes to court over (say) an improperly labeled
exit, the people in the court will know what an exit is, and will be
able to argue the question "Is this door in fact an exit?" rather
than the question "What is an exit?" A short reflexion will shew
you that this is progress.
The unspoken attitude that underlies this proposed amendment had its
best expression when the fifteenth century English rebel Wat Tyler
declared "First, let's kill all the lawyers."
John Hobson
AT&T Bell Labs
Naperville, IL
(312) 979-0193
ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (02/08/84)
Scott,
I have a definition that fits my concept of a politician. It is
from the Thorndike & Barnhart dictionary, (the only one we have
on hand in my area) and is defined as follows:
POLITICIAN: 2) A person active in politics CHIEFLY for his OWN GAIN
or that of his party!
I don't know if this will satisfy Constitutional requirements, but it
sums up my views rather well.
I like your two proposals, they seem to have merit. There may be hope
for Democracy yet, if the politicians don't pull the rug out from under
us. I gave up trying to read the tax laws, I figure it's cheaper to
spend $10-20 a year to have my taxes done by professionals than paying
an anylist $50-100 per hour to help me recover my sanity every tax season.
PEACE & BEST WISHES
From the ever curious mind of:
Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihuxj!amra)renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/12/84)
#R:ihuxj:-39000:uiucdcs:29200088:000:1372 uiucdcs!renner Feb 10 16:30:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / ihuxq!amigo2 / 7:40 pm Feb 7, 1984 */ Scott Renner advocates the following Constitutional amendment: >> 2. Heinlein's "Semantic Amendment", also known as the >> "Plain English Amendment." It specifies that any law or >> regulation of the federal government may be ruled >> unconstitutional on the grounds that it is too complicated >> to understand. The testing and sampling technique is >> specified in the amendment. Lawyers, judges, law >> professors, etc. are to be excluded from the sample. Lawyers, etc., use an understandable language; that is, understandable to them. They use a professional language in just the same way we do. We know what we are talking about, even if the average layperson does not. My wife, an intelligent but technically untrained woman, saw the word "byte" written recently, and was not sure how it should be pronounced (she knows what a byte is, she just didn't know how it was spelled). Should we then be forced to say "seven or eight (depending on the system) binary digits" instead of "byte"? That is what the "plain english" advocates are insisting that the lawyers must do. All you would ensure is that the tax code (Scott's example) would be even longer than it is already. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2 /* ---------- */
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/12/84)
#R:ihuxj:-39000:uiucdcs:29200089:000:730
uiucdcs!renner Feb 10 16:41:00 1984
John Hobson correctly points out that the lawyers are using a professional
language, just as engineers do. The difference is that we are all required
(by law) on threat of punishment to comply with documents written in this
language. I cannot see how our country can reasonably punish a citizen
when the citizen cannot understand the description of the proscribed
behavior.
The U.S. Tax Code is the best known example of an incomprehensible law. I
submit that there exists no person who can understand it. The IRS will
interpret the code for you if you have questions, but they reserve the right
to nail you for back taxes, interest, and penalties if they later change
their mind.
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner