Re: Constitution requirements and deploring them

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Daniel C. Burton: "Re: Libertarianism Q&A"
• Previous message: Daniel C. Burton: "Jury Education Initiative"
• Maybe in reply to: Seth David Schoen: "Constitution requirements and deploring them"

Seth David Schoen <schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in article
<6b8kgo$ccb$1@agate.berkeley.edu>...

> In general, the sheet says that various specified "[i]nformation ... is
> required", but it doesn't say that the given "text" is required.
> 
> The interpretation of the word "affirm" is relevant.  My reading of it
> would permit a logically equivalent statement with the same text.  For
> instance, I think that someone who affirms the principles of
libertarianism
> is affirming libertarianism; presumably someone affirming points of law
is
> also affirming the law.  But in both cases, one needn't be affirming
something
> _as such_ -- someone might not like the label "libertarianism", or
someone
> might not like the entity called "California State Law", but still affirm
> their content.

So why don't we just stick in our personal choice of anti-discrimination
statements, one that actually draws on libertarian principles, and then
stick in another statement that says we affirm and will obey California
State Law?  Shouldn't this be enough to implicitly hold us to whatever
specific requirements they want us to include?

• Next message: Daniel C. Burton: "Re: Libertarianism Q&A"
• Previous message: Daniel C. Burton: "Jury Education Initiative"
• Maybe in reply to: Seth David Schoen: "Constitution requirements and deploring them"