Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2 From: amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: A New Constitutional Amendment (a SE - (nf) Message-ID: <602@ihuxq.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 11:33:23 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxq.602 Posted: Tue Feb 7 11:33:23 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:00:09 EST References: <5425@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 27 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