home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: co.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!csn!raven!rcd
- From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
- Subject: Re: interesting thought (amendment 2)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.054741@eklektix.com>
- Summary: amendments vs articles
- Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
- References: <1992Nov20.200959.23319@col.hp.com> <1992Nov21.231415@eklektix.com> <1992Nov22.165919.2492@craycos.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:47:41 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
- >rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
- >>As I wrote the above, I started wondering about Amendment 2 _vs_ Article I
- >>of the US Constitution...
- ...
- >>...Or am I badly misunderstanding Article I?
- ...
- >You're thinking of the First Amendment, not Article I. This *is* mentioned in
- >the suit that was filed to overturn 2.
-
- Yes, I do know the difference. What I meant was, in popular terms, the
- "First Amendment". The notational scheme is potentially confusing, but the
- body of the US Constitution is divided into 7 (VII?:-) sections called
- "articles". These are followed by the "Amendments", each of which is
- labeled an "article"--e.g., the "Bill of Rights" comprises the first ten
- articles of the amendments to the US Constitution. I had thought to make
- the discussion slightly less confusing by using "article" in reference to
- the US Constitution and "amendment" in reference to the recent ballot
- issue. I see I made it worse, rather than better, by being careless about
- the context of "article"...be that as it may, I hadn't seen mention of the
- First Amendment in what I'd read of the suit; I'm glad to know it may also
- be relevant. Thanks, Steve (even if you do live in Co Spgs:-)
- --
- Dick Dunn rcd@raven.eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado
- ...Ain't no time to hate.
-