Grammatically speaking. I've made my own share of typos in the past, in fairness, so it's certainly not my intent to impinge on the competence of the Constitutional Convention . . . but these are problematic, and in some cases blur the meaning of the effected clause to the point it is rendered arguably meaningless or unenforceable.
For example, from the revised Bill of Rights
and here is an extract taken from the Book of Genesis
So the preamble seems to be saying that the "inalienable rights" enumerated by the Southern (Jefferson) Constitution are the offspring of the Southern people —which as imagery is . . . bizarre, and also not, I'm fairly certain, what the Convention was trying to say. I
assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the delegates were attempting to emulate the language of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to rights "endowed by their Creator," but without the theistic grounding of that phrase. Unfortunately, "born unto them" is not another way of saying "possessed from birth," so the result is a symbolically dissonant passage in the preamble to the second Article.
While exceedingly strange, this 'error' doesn't
really impact the practical interpretation of the Constitution as a charter of government; in subsequent sections, however . . .
The choice of "bound" as a predicate makes it sound as if it is an offense for citizens
not to express their "ideas and thoughts."
But they may
implicitly favor one group over another?
Those "will"s should really be "shall"s if this clause is supposed to be binding in its prohibition against establishment of a state religion; also, saying each person
deserves the right to worship is not the same as saying they
have that right.
I'm pretty sure this is a straight-up typo. More seriously, it's not clear how a constitutional prohibition against
any regional limitations on the right to property effects, say, eminent domain . . . or taxation . . . or slavery.
Now, you can argue that the Bill of Rights is basically symbolic anyways, since freedom of speech and religion, equal protection under the law, and prohibitions against slavery are enshrined in the federal Constitution; but then we get into the meat of the document.
The use of "granted" instead of
vested in suggests the power to enact legislation does not reside with the Legislature itself, but with some other body, and the Legislature merely exercises it on loan. If I were an aspiring tyrant, I would absolutely use this interpretation to ratify my agenda without reference to the Chamber of Delegates.
Obvious inconsistencies are obvious.
From the section describing the election of senators
"Vested" is a shortened form of the somewhat more common "invested," which in this context means "placed in [a container]." The judicial
Power is vested in the Associate Justice, per the relevant provisions of the federal Constitution; the judicial
branch is the part of the regional government which the Associate Justice constitutes, and is not vested in anyone or anything.
This is just what I noticed glancing through the text in 15–20 minutes. I'm sorry to be raising these concerns so late, and I do not mean to belittle the care and effort which went into this document, which I am sure was considerable; I also, admittedly, do not know how much of this is carried over from the existing Constitution (certain phrases seemed familiar to me from the last time I posted on this topic). That all said, I would urge the governor and the responsible authorities to address these errors as quickly as possible, either through the existing Convention, or by a post-facto amendment in the event the new Constitution is ratified before revisions can be made. While I do not have all the time in the world, I would be willing to help with proofreading and suggestions for phrasing if I can be of service.
