3 ms·
So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?
by st3v3r 10y ago
So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?
- John23832 10y agoMy original comment said that courts could interpret law... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, including intention. US courts do it all the time. It's called the Constitution.
- stinkytaco 10y agoI guess I would look at this: >evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking) And argue that electronic privacy vis-a-vis wiretapping laws is creating a new portion of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking. We can quibble about definitions, but that strikes me as very much in the area of "evolution".
- John23832 10y agoI think defining "evolution" and "create" are the real sticking points in this argument. That get's down to splitting hairs. Though I will say that I do believe that everyone in this thread does have sound arguments given their definition of those two words.