Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The constituition does not seem to refer to modification of existing > documents at all (except the constituition itself). There are therefore > two alternatives: > > 1. Modify the constituition to add provision for modifying and revoking > existing documents fitting the criteria above, or > > 2. Treat them as of equal importance to the consitituition.
There is a third: reject it due to your overly-anal analysis. The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary has done. Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitution himself. Had he rejected it, I would have submitted a reworded version that would accomplish the exact same thing and have the exact same effect but would comply with this particular unsupportable and overly legalistic point of view. The end result would have been a proposal fully Constitutional and votable under current rules. However, the Secretary did not choose a logical path, and we a left with a huge mess. -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com #include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
