On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Martin Schulze wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the > > > non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on > > > how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part > > > of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made > > > available to voters. > > Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so > that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author > has intended its interpretation?
It should be, but I'm far from infallible,[1] which is why I included the entire text as part of the proposal. > As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when > *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in > that regard. While I still disagree that courts are unable to look at a preamble to guide their interpretation of a resolution, I have specifically included those paragraphs in the text of the proposal to sidestep this entire line of argument. Don Armstrong 1: Indeed, its worse than that: I'm often totally incomprehensible. -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
