Vauge language

Post #145,181 by orion 3/10/04 12:21:37 AM Reply	Vauge language However, the language in the Bill of Rights was still vague and open to interpretation. Which causes a problem, and leaves it open to interpritation, and hence the problems we are having with it. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,182 by Another Scott 3/10/04 12:28:19 AM Reply	Um, all speech and writing is subject to interpretation. "It depends on what the meaning of the word [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm\|'is'] is." Cheers, Scott.
Post #145,322 by danreck 3/10/04 1:59:04 PM Reply	You b*3tard... The day the American justice system died... You linked it... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,495 by Another Scott 3/10/04 10:41:59 PM Reply	Not meant to cause offense. I thought it was the perfect illustration of the fact that a very simple sentence can mean different things to different people. Whether you agree with Clinton's weasling or not, it shows that words have to be interpreted in some context. Similarly with the Constitution. Cheers, Scott.
Post #145,187 by deSitter 3/10/04 12:42:13 AM Reply	Not in the current context Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Let's translate from 18th to 21st century English: Congress will not enact laws having the following purposes; to favor a particular religion, or to prohibit religious practice; to restrict free speech or the free reporting of news; to inhibit the right of people to gather together peaceably for any purpose; or to call on the Government to take corrective action in case these rights are violated. It is not language that is at fault - it is the spirit of those who read not for understanding, but for personal advantage. -drl
Post #145,259 by orion 3/10/04 11:39:23 AM Reply	Your interpritation tends to make more sense. Congress will not enact laws having the following purposes; to favor a particular religion, or to prohibit religious practice; to restrict free speech or the free reporting of news; to inhibit the right of people to gather together peaceably for any purpose; or to call on the Government to take corrective action in case these rights are violated. Now then, please show me where Congress made a law that violated that recently. Also explain how it can apply to a court judge when it clearly states "Congress will not..." and not "The Government will not..." do those sort of things. It is not language that is at fault - it is the spirit of those who read not for understanding, but for personal advantage. I am trying to understand it, thanks to your translation it makes better sense now. I am confused by the "Congress will not..." part and how it applies to other parts of the government. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*

Welcome to IWETHEY!