You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why every Blockchain needs a Constitution
If it is "short, easily understood, and generally unambiguous" and well-written, then you wouldn't need a judicial arbiter. Even if a group of people is writing it and the document represents community consensus, the wording needs to be decisive rather than a compromise that looks like it was written by a committee. That alone would make it clearer than any law passed by the US Congress, most of which end up in court for interpretation because they were written in committee or because the writers overreached beyond their areas of expertise. I'd add that any constitution must be a broad statement of principles and not anything subject to enforcement.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. We can't even agree on if slavery ended in this country. The Thirteenth Amendment if you read it carefully puts in an exception which indicates not only has it not ended but it has been expanded.
These are the words:
If anyone could just read the constitution and know exactly what it says then common sense would indicate that all prisoners are slaves to the government. Of course we know the government isn't going to admit that and instead people will use more ambiguous terms like "state property".
Do convicted criminals maintain citizenship status? Some cannot vote and cannot buy a gun even after they've served their time. If the constitution were so clear then these debates would not be happening.
Originally race was the justification for slavery. Now if you ask some of the best lawyers they cannot tell whether or not slavery has ended. Should we take the words from the constitution and assume we know the meaning as well as the experts in which case the US government looks evil or should we assume the experts know what those words really mean?