Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!riacs!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon.Stanford.EDU!stanton From: stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: Date: 19 Apr 91 22:12:48 GMT References: <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 55 In-Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu's message of 17 Apr 91 23:05:27 GMT In article <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: I don't dispute the extra care that should be taken with constitutional ammendments, but also recall the mission impossible undertaken in the last attempt at such an ammendment. Could you clarify this? I'm afraid I missed the reference. But you still haven't addressed the issue of computer use limitations by drawing what I consider to be a viable analogy. I would liken computer use more to that of a sliderule, or perhaps a paperless typewriter, in the sense of requiring as a minimum only a small 'space' than I would to a garbage disposal which must, by its nature, utilize resources outside the immediate sphere of the user. I can envision absolutely no logic to licensing, or making use of, a privilege, where is where this discussion opened. I don't think licensing computing devices makes any sense, either. But there is a difference between stating that it makes no sense to license and stating that the use is a right. I would contend that a lot of computing does use public resources. Electricity is an obvious example. In many cases, the phone lines are another. You might argue that the phone lines aren't part of the computer and therefore shouldn't be considered, but I consider the ability to use my modem an integral part of the free use of my machine. Where do you draw the line? Do I have a right to use the computer as long as I can supply my own phone lines and/or power, or do I have some claim on those resources as well? My main point is that details like this don't belong in the Constitution. >So far we have managed to keep the national Constitution >relatively clean (with a few notable exceptions like prohibition). If >we add too much to the Constitution, it loses some of its power >because it becomes harder to understand and interpret. Indeed, it has actually been, to some extent, the simple elegance of the US Constitution which has made it so difficult to understand and to interpret. Remember too that as long as the constitution remains deviod of detail, successive Supreme Courts have rendered opposite verdicts for identical reasons. This is what makes the Constitution such a powerful document. The principles are invariant over time even when the details are not. It is impossible to apply the Constitution without some context. The Supreme Court is there to provide that context. The changing interpretations of the Constitution reflect the changing contexts in which it must be interpreted. If we put too much context into the Constitution, it will become brittle and break. By this I mean that we will lose sight of the principles and become bogged down in details that may no longer be relevant. This is what I was referring to when I pointed out the Texas constitution. Bill Vajk -- --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)