Let me get this straight…

Ok, so that’s not entirely true. Part of it isn’t wrong.

What the hell am I talking about? Simple – the US constitution is, primarily, a specification. It is a specification that describes how to perform a certain set of requirements (which, coincidentally, is the part that isn’t wrong). So why is that wrong? It’s not actually wrong – it simply doesn’t take into account all available information. It takes into account merely the information available to the creators of the specification. There are numerous examples of how these specifications may have applied to a world eleven score and two years ago, but not today. As illustration, I’ll use a non-controversial example in the seventh amendment: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved….” Obviously, if you’re suing someone over $20 today, you have too much time and/or money on your hands, and are doing it for sport. From my research, that $20 most likely represented somewhere around $8,000 today. Presumably, the reason for putting a price on it was to limit the invocation of a civil trial by jury, but that limit is effectively meaningless today. We have no idea why they worded the specs the way they did – we probably understand their world a little better than they do ours (history is easier to understand than future). But we do have something valuable to use.

The US constitution includes a very clear requirements section – i.e. the justification for the specs. What are these requirements? “…in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”. Everyone hears a lot of bickering of what the intent of the founding fathers was. But there is no need to bicker. It’s right there, very clear. Their intent was not to make it so people could have guns, or to have state run health care. Their intent was not to make it so people could have abortions, or pray in school. Their intent was to form a more perfect union. To establish justice. to insure domestic tranquility. To provide for the common defense. To promote the general welfare, and finally, to secure the blessings of liberty themselves and their posterity.

So why am I writing about the constitution? Because it’s exactly the kind of thing we do at S3. Do you have a problem? I bet you have an idea for a solution. Many companies would love to talk to you about that solution, and give you what you’re asking for. But S3 doesn’t. We’re not in the business of implementing someone else’s solution. We don’t have complete knowledge of the problem you are facing. You probably don’t have full knowledge of what the system is capable of, even if you’ve used it in the past. Just like we today have knowledge that the founding fathers never did (like the fact that $20 is an inconsequential amount of money compared to legal fees), and they knew clearly what they were trying to do, you and S3 have complementary knowledge.

With constitutional arguments, don’t try to convince me that your assault rifles are legal because the constitution says they are. Convince me that it will help provide for the common defense, or insure domestic tranquility. Don’t tell me that the government should disallow prayer in schools because the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Tell me why that will promote the general welfare or secure the blessings of liberty. With software – tell me your problem. I’d love to hear your solution. But be assured I’m going to challenge it. Because I’m going to make sure your requirements are met. My goal is not to implement your specs. The more we understand your problem, the better we can implement a solution that solves it. My goal is to give you a more perfect solution to your problem.

And hopefully, we will all continue to strive for that more perfect union.