3 ms·

Actually, I think that hashing out the intent and reasonable/practical limits of a law based on its language is a job for the judicial branch, not Congress. La

Actually, I think that hashing out the intent and reasonable/practical limits of a law based on its language is a job for the judicial branch, not Congress. Laws didn't used to be massive 'we need to pass them to see what is in them' tomes. They used to be simple missives, written in everyday language, without umpteen dozen riders and special exemptions and funding stipulations and amendments and what-have-you. They used words and phrases like 'reasonable' or 'within reason,' rather than, 'a person shall be considered as belonging to Status B if they have retained Condition C for a length of time no less than 3 years but no more than 6, unless such a person can demonstrate Condition D...' Judges used to have leeway in how they interpreted laws and applied sentences. Yes, it gave judges the power to give ridiculously short sentences and let their buddies/'our sort of people' get off scott free. And yes, it gave judges the power to give extremely heavy-handed sentences if they felt personally slighted. But they do those things today in our current system with minimal consequences, so I'd argue...so what? I think that allowing people to act like people and reason like people is fundamental to any decent legal system. We can't try to make justice into some kind of an algorithm, because at the end of the day there's no reified reference for "Justice." There's just us.

stephenbez 9y ago
This is because if a law is too vague, it is considered unconstitutional. As part of due process, it should be clear from reading the law if I'm breaking it. I shouldn't have to guess and face years in prison if I happen to be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
warrenm 9y ago
> I think that hashing out the intent and reasonable/practical limits of a law based on its language is a job for the judicial branch, not Congress. It is the job of the judicial branch to apply law (after the executive branch pursues lawbreakers). But look at simple, clear, concise laws vs things like the US tax code (which is annoyingly precise in some places, yet ridiculously vague in so many others) - the simpler, clearer, and - often - shorter the law, the better for everyone involved.

stephenbez 9y ago

This is because if a law is too vague, it is considered unconstitutional. As part of due process, it should be clear from reading the law if I'm breaking it. I shouldn't have to guess and face years in prison if I happen to be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine

warrenm 9y ago

> I think that hashing out the intent and reasonable/practical limits of a law based on its language is a job for the judicial branch, not Congress. It is the job of the judicial branch to apply law (after the executive branch pursues lawbreakers). But look at simple, clear, concise laws vs things like the US tax code (which is annoyingly precise in some places, yet ridiculously vague in so many others) - the simpler, clearer, and - often - shorter the law, the better for everyone involved.