We agree on this one. The principle of exclusion or not rendering parts of the Constitution null would both buttress the interpretation that “general revisions” should be different from more precise “amendments”. The Court took a lot of words to defend its decision – knowing the inevitable political claims that it was only acting in its own political interests would be levied – and its only weakness was that it struggled to precisely define “general revision,” I think it was clear enough and certainly clear enough from RMGN itself that it was a major general systemwide revision, rather than an amendment. Like obscenity – you know it when you see it (for example, we all know child-pornography is obscene and should be regulatable despite the First Amendment) – this particular case was easy even though the definition isn't.

We agree on this one. The principle of exclusion or not rendering parts of the Constitution null would both buttress the interpretation that “general revisions” should be different from more precise “amendments”. The Court took a lot of words to defend its decision – knowing the inevitable political claims that it was only acting in its own political interests would be levied – and its only weakness was that it struggled to precisely define “general revision,” I think it was clear enough and certainly clear enough from RMGN itself that it was a major general systemwide revision, rather than an amendment. Like obscenity – you know it when you see it (for example, we all know child-pornography is obscene and should be regulatable despite the First Amendment) – this particular case was easy even though the definition isn't.