Talk:Alabama State Constitution of 1901/Initial Constitution
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Source: | Index:Alabama State Constitution of 1901.djvu |
Loss of section descriptions[edit]
I have migrated the text to Index:Alabama State Constitution of 1901.djvu, which lacks the section descriptions such as section 1 being described as "Equality and rights of men". I have not looked into where these section titles came from; they may be in a different edition from way back when, but I suspect they have been added more recently. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Significant differences between source file and “official” version[edit]
Beyond section titles, I’ve run across thousands of differences between the text of the source file and the online version from the Alabama Legislature’s official site (ALISON). Most of these are differences in capitalization and using Oxford commas (or not), i.e. purely stylistic.
But there are other places where the two sources use commas differently in ways that could arguably affect the interpretation of the text, which can be a particularly big deal when it comes to legal texts. Other differences include typos, some of which are more subtle than obvious spelling errors. For example, Section 25 in the source text establishes the right of citizens to apply for “redress or grievances”, while the ALISON copy refers to the right to apply for “redress of grievances”. Surely the former version is a typo—only a masochist would appreciate the right to apply for grievances (hardships), while “redress of grievances” is found verbatim in Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
In any case, frustratingly, I’m unable to find any information about any of these inconsistencies. Particularly important: is the source file an accurate representation of the text of the Constitution as originally drafted, and ratified in 1901? Assuming “yes”, of almost equal importance is the record of how/when the text was corrected of its typos (and changes of stylistic conventions viz. capitalization and commas). And if the answer is “no”, then whether to continue relying upon the current (flawed) source suddenly becomes debatable. Chidoelrey (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)