Briefly, in rebuttal, I agree that there's been a great deal of litigation concerning that phrase. To me, that's a sign that it's a valuable phrase. Litigation always has winners and losers. The amount of litigation shows that it's a phrase people can use to ensure that proper and appropriate measures are being taken.
I take that as a good thing, because that phrase then has meaning, a meaning that's been interpreted by the courts from time to time, and then it's easier of application. If we start changing the wording, well, you're going to start a whole new round of litigation, which may or may not lead somewhere. At least with the phrase that we have, not only do we have a constitutional principle but we have a body of precedent that can be used to judge a particular circumstance without having to go to court and re-litigate.