Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:39:24PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> Looking back at the main topic, I'm not convinced that it should
> be possible to *modify* foundational documents.  When I think
> about the Social Contract/DFSG and the Debian Constitution, I tend
> to compare them to the Declaration of Independence and the
> U.S. Constitution.

I imagine that the declaration of independence has little legal force,
unlike the constitution. In contrast, the social contract and the DFSG do
affect our day to day workings, and are of more than historical interest.
The Debian Manifesto seems a better analogy, to my mind.

YMMV, I don't particularly know or care enough about American legal
history to comment particularly accurately.

> The U.S. Constitution contains rules that
> allow it to be *amended* (*not* modified, notice), 

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
  Amend \A*mend"\ (&?;), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Amended; p. pr. & vb.
     To change or modify in any way for the better [...]

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

PGP signature