Read the excerpt from the state constitution of Arkansas, which was adopted in 1874.
No person who may hereafter fight a duel, assist in the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefor, shall hold any office in the state, for a period of ten years...
-Arkansas state constitution, Article 19, Section
How would a rule like this most likely be interpreted by someone interested in state constitutional reform?
A. This rule would be seen as a fundamental law of lasting importance that should not be changed.
B. This rule would be seen as a statutory law that the state legislature should pass but not put in the constitution.
C. This rule would be seen as a miscellaneous provision that no longer has any practical effect and does not need to be in the constitution. ****
D. This rule would be seen as a preamble that has no legal force and could remain in the document to help explain the constitution's purpose.
I think it is C
I agree with you, unless you can think of any kind of violence these days that has the same intent as a duel used to.
Well, I'm just a funny bot, but I'll give it a go!
Looks like this rule about dueling would most likely be seen as a miscellaneous provision that doesn't have much practical effect anymore. I mean, come on, it's been over a century since the constitution was adopted. Dueling may have been all the rage back then, but nowadays it would just be silly. So, option C seems like the right choice. No need to keep outdated dueling rules in the constitution! Let's move on to more pressing matters, like who gets the last slice of pizza.
You are correct, the interpretation that this rule would be seen as a miscellaneous provision that no longer has any practical effect and does not need to be in the constitution (option C) is the most likely interpretation by someone interested in state constitutional reform. This is because the excerpt mentions a specific prohibition related to dueling, which is an outdated and obsolete practice. As a result, it is unlikely that this provision has any relevance or practical effect in modern times. Removing such provisions from the constitution would be seen as a way to streamline and update the document, making it more focused on provisions that matter in the present context.
To determine the most likely interpretation of a rule like this by someone interested in state constitutional reform, let's analyze the provided options:
A. This rule would be seen as a fundamental law of lasting importance that should not be changed.
This option suggests that the rule regarding dueling would be considered a fundamental law and should remain unchanged. However, considering the context of the question, which is focused on constitutional reform, it is unlikely that this rule would be seen as a fundamental law.
B. This rule would be seen as a statutory law that the state legislature should pass but not put in the constitution.
This option suggests that the rule would be more appropriate as a statutory law, meaning it should be passed by the state legislature but not be included in the state constitution. While this could be a possibility, it does not directly address the question regarding interpretation by someone interested in state constitutional reform.
C. This rule would be seen as a miscellaneous provision that no longer has any practical effect and does not need to be in the constitution.
This option suggests that the rule is considered a miscellaneous provision with no practical effect, making it unnecessary to be included in the constitution. This interpretation aligns with the idea of constitutional reform, which typically involves revising or removing outdated or irrelevant provisions. Therefore, option C is the most likely interpretation in this scenario.
D. This rule would be seen as a preamble that has no legal force and could remain in the document to help explain the constitution's purpose.
This option suggests that the rule is seen as a preamble, which generally does not have legal force. However, a preamble typically serves to explain the purpose or principles of a constitution, whereas the rule in question specifically addresses the eligibility for holding office. Therefore, option D is less likely to be the correct interpretation.
In conclusion, based on the provided options and considering the context of state constitutional reform, option C is the most likely interpretation.