What should a state constitution comprise? In less than 8,000 words, I will demonstrate.

Note that I used a modified version of the Vermont Declaration of Rights. I modified the relevant portions of the United States Constitution and made it applicable to a State. The portion regarding the Judiciary is original. Because I started off with Vermont, I used Vermont generically for the name of the State.

It should start with a comprehensive and vigorous declaration or bill of rights, as below.

1,596 words consumed.

(Note: It is not necessary to read the pasted sections, unless you wish to. But I pasted them to show that not only can it be done, but it can be EASILY done to enact a minimalist Constitution.)

Next up, Legislature and the power of the State.

Very simple, very easy here. No listing of powers, just an acknowledgement that a State has the powers not delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited to it by the United States Constitution.

1650 words consumed.

The next two Articles are the Executive Branch and the separate Attorney General.

They consume all of 1,232 words between them.

By far the longest part of the Constitution is the Judiciary section.

It consumes 2,347 words.

The final three articles are the shortest.

They consume 533 words between them.

Dillon’s rule is the doctrine whereby all counties and local governments are creatures of the State and have only those powers the State Legislature chooses to grant.

Cooley’s Doctrine is that counties and local governments have inherent and wide-ranging home rule powers.

I have gone with Cooley’s Doctrine.

1,596+1,650+1,232+2,347+533=7,358 words for the whole damn thing.

Even with a few frills and extras, no state Constitution should ever exceed perhaps 12,000 words.

The only reason for excess length is policy matters that have no business being in the Constitution, such as pig crates, marriage amendments, etc.

2 Likes

The use of the inherently ambiguous word “shall” throughout troubles me a little bit - other than that looks like a fine example of how to do it.

https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/

Of course it troubles you and probably because we find in our federal Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

JWK

Why is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comfortable with filling New York City’s scarce public housing with illegal aliens when her constituent needy Citizens, including U.S. Military Veterans, are going homeless?

That was fine wording in the late 18th century, but current best practice calls for use of less ambiguous words of obligation. “Will” or “must” are preferable, depending on context.

You do have a valid point. And obviously the wording in the Declaration of Rights portion would need to be modernized. The history and wording of Vermont Declaration of Rights proceeds the United States Bill of Rights by about 15 years, so there are a few “haths” and other obsolete language present.

Shall is not ambiguous

3 Likes

image

I learned that during my first year when studying constitutional law.

See the legal meaning of SHALL

JWK

2 Likes

In todays context, “shall” is ambiguous.

Much better to use “Will”

Nonsense.

2 Likes

Please coinsider this:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/canceling-the-word-shall-in-leases-3494337/

In my state (VA), the Supreme Court has deprecated the use of “shall” in legal drafting for precisely these reasons (and then some).

…and this:

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/shall-shocked-the-use-of-shall-in-legal-documents

@Safiel,
There are somethings I don’t like, but there’s a lot of good stuff there.

In regular conversation? Maybe.

But in “legalese” it is a command.

2 Likes

Will is better than shall.

I agree. Or must.